On 29.05.2020 17:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/05/2020 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.05.2020 14:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2020 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -11474,25
On 29/05/2020 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.05.2020 14:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/05/2020 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>>> @@ -11474,25 +11474,87 @@ x86_insn_operand_ea(const struct x86_emu
On 29.05.2020 14:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/05/2020 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -11474,25 +11474,87 @@ x86_insn_operand_ea(const struct x86_emu
>> return state->ea.mem.off;
>> }
>>
>>
On 25/05/2020 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> First of all explain in comments what the functions' purposes are. Then
> make them actually match their comments.
>
> Note that fc6fa977be54 ("x86emul: extend x86_insn_is_mem_write()
> coverage") didn't actually fix the function's behavior for
First of all explain in comments what the functions' purposes are. Then
make them actually match their comments.
Note that fc6fa977be54 ("x86emul: extend x86_insn_is_mem_write()
coverage") didn't actually fix the function's behavior for {,V}STMXCSR:
Both are covered by generic code higher up in
