On 30/09/16 13:11, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 30.09.16 at 13:59, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 08/09/16 14:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c >>> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static const opcode_desc_t twobyte_table >>> /* 0x70 - 0x7F */ >>> SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, SrcImmByte|ModRM, >>> ModRM, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps, >>> - ModRM, ModRM, 0, 0, ModRM, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, >>> + ModRM, ModRM, 0, 0, ModRM, ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, ImplicitOps|ModRM, >>> /* 0x80 - 0x87 */ >>> DstImplicit|SrcImm, DstImplicit|SrcImm, >>> DstImplicit|SrcImm, DstImplicit|SrcImm, >>> @@ -2291,6 +2291,10 @@ x86_decode( >>> return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >>> } >>> >>> + if ( op_bytes == 2 && >>> + (ctxt->opcode & X86EMUL_OPC_PFX_MASK) == X86EMUL_OPC_66(0, 0) ) >>> + op_bytes = 4; >> What is this change for? I presume it is to undo the effect of the >> operand size override prefix when we have decided that the prefix >> actually had an alternate meaning? > Yes. > >> If so, can we have a comment to this effect? > + /* > + * Undo the operand-size override effect of prefix 66 when it was > + * determined to have another meaning. > + */ > >> Everything else looks ok. > Can I take this as R-b then with the comment added?
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
