On 07/12/16 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.12.16 at 17:35, wrote:
On 06/12/16 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -5424,7 +5436,6 @@ x86_emulate(
goto cannot_emulate;
}
- writeback:
This removal highlights that the writeback and no_writeback lables are
>>> On 06.12.16 at 17:35, wrote:
> On 06/12/16 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -5424,7 +5436,6 @@ x86_emulate(
>> goto cannot_emulate;
>> }
>>
>> - writeback:
>
> This removal highlights that the writeback and no_writeback lables are
> incorrectly
>>> On 06.12.16 at 17:35, wrote:
> On 06/12/16 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -5424,7 +5436,6 @@ x86_emulate(
>> goto cannot_emulate;
>> }
>>
>> - writeback:
>
> This removal highlights that the writeback and no_writeback lables are
> incorrectly
On 06/12/16 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When a 32-bit address override is in effect these zero-extend all
> registers which would also get updated in case of non-zero repeat
> count.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper .
When a 32-bit address override is in effect these zero-extend all
registers which would also get updated in case of non-zero repeat
count.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -933,15 +933,24