Il 18/10/2013 02:04, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:50:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
>> any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
>> It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM
Il 18/10/2013 02:04, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:50:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM userspace did
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:50:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
> any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
> It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM userspace did that.
It is not a typo, look at __kvm_set_xcr
The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM userspace did that.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM userspace did that.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:50:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The loop was always using 0 as the index. This means that
any rubbish after the first element of the array went undetected.
It seems reasonable to assume that no KVM userspace did that.
It is not a typo, look at __kvm_set_xcr when
6 matches
Mail list logo