On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 31.10.2010, at 11:22, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:00:08AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 31.10.2010, at 07:36, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> Call into emulator when INVD instruction is executed by a guest.
> >>
> >> Why? This is a poor patch description.
> > Why what? Why we need to handle INVD exit instead of stopping with
> > unhandled exit error?
>
> Ah, so we get the exit already, but don't handle it? That's an important
> piece of information that belongs in the patch description. Another thing I
> as a reader would also like to know is where this got triggered, so which
> guests would break without the patch.
>
I'll add it to the patch description. The guest that triggered it was
open firmware, but I do not think this info belongs to patch description
too.
> I'm also wondering why nobody has seen it before. Is this a regression? Is
> this exit a side-effect of another feature bit of VMX, so only newer CPUs are
> affected?
>
I guess nobody seen it because not many guests use the instruction.
Actually this instruction is useful only for firmware use. This is not a
regression.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
