This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [Xen-staging] [xen-unstable] svm: Improve emulation

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-staging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [Xen-staging] [xen-unstable] svm: Improve emulation of SMSW instruction for memory operands.
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:54:54 +0100
Delivery-date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:56:41 +0100
Envelope-to: Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B018E1B66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acdy5ovwI7VMxSrsTlOEtlVS4Bsa2gAAEcDQAAFUMAs=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: [Xen-staging] [xen-unstable] svm: Improve emulation of SMSW instruction for memory operands.
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 30/3/07 17:21, "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Shouldn't such assumptions be checked by a "BUG_ON", "ASSERT" or
> similar? It doesn't seem like difficult thing to check to me. And it's
> heck of a lot easier to figure out why it went completely horribly
> wrong, than when the code just happily continues to execute, but in the
> wrong place or in some incorrect way?
> [I agree that there's like 0.1% chance that someone uses SMSW in 64-bit
> mode, but it's still a VALID instruction in that mode - and perhaps more
> importantly, it may be used in different addressing mode in 32-bit
> code.]

It's no worse than the code it replaces. Feel very free to send a patch.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>