From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] vmx: nest: handling VMX instruction exits Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:40:41 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B22A8C201F@shsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B22A8C201F@shsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Dong, Eddie" , Tim Deegan , "He, Qing" Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/09/2010 05:55, "Dong, Eddie" wrote: >>> +enum x86_segment sreg_to_index[] = { >>> + [VMX_SREG_ES] = x86_seg_es, >>> + [VMX_SREG_CS] = x86_seg_cs, >>> + [VMX_SREG_SS] = x86_seg_ss, >>> + [VMX_SREG_DS] = x86_seg_ds, >>> + [VMX_SREG_FS] = x86_seg_fs, >>> + [VMX_SREG_GS] = x86_seg_gs, >>> +}; >> >> Since you dislike adding new namespaces and translations, I'm sure you >> can get rid of these. :) It might even simplify some of the macros >> below. > > True, some dupcation here. Regarding following definition in x86_emulate.c, we > can reuse. AFAICS if you must have your own extra instruction decoder, a few register translation definitions and arrays is the least of it really. I'd rather keep x86_emulate clean and separate rather than become intertwined with another emulator. What is wrong with simply extending x86_emulate to handle these VMX-related instructions? We've dealt with emulators provided by Intel guys in the past and frankly they were full of holes. -- Keir