From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E55C43219 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591A220656 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727007AbfD2B0v (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:26:51 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:27973 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726689AbfD2B0u (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:26:50 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2019 18:26:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,407,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="146630812" Received: from genxtest-ykzhao.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.143.71]) ([10.239.143.71]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2019 18:26:49 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/4] x86/acrn: Add hypercall for ACRN guest To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "Chen, Jason CJ" References: <1556067260-9128-1-git-send-email-yakui.zhao@intel.com> <1556067260-9128-5-git-send-email-yakui.zhao@intel.com> <20190425070712.GA57256@gmail.com> <6dd021a9-e2c0-ee84-55fd-3e6dfb4bd944@intel.com> <20190425110025.GA16164@zn.tnic> <473d145c-4bfd-4ec8-34c3-8a26a78fe40d@intel.com> <20190427085816.GB12360@zn.tnic> <20190428100309.GA2334@zn.tnic> From: "Zhao, Yakui" Message-ID: <4c5ca6d7-ffb1-a5a5-9e46-9057802318e0@intel.com> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:24:12 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190428100309.GA2334@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019年04月28日 18:03, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 09:56:35AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote: >> Thanks for the reminder about the access width. >> It is 64-bit register. What I said is the "movq", not "movl". >> (I understand that movl is incorrect for 64-bit register). > > I didn't say anything about movl. I think what you're trying to say is > that because your inputs like hcall_id and param1/2 are unsigned longs, > you want a 64-bit move. Yes. "movq" only indicates explicitly that it is 64-bit mov as ACRN guest only works under 64-bit mode. I also check the usage of "mov" and "movq" in this scenario. There is no difference except that the movq is an explicit 64-op. Of course "mov" is also ok to me that if you prefer the "mov". Thanks Yakui >