After seeing the sheer number of one-off additions, I'm wondering if going through the opcode map systematically and see what is still missing might not be a bad idea. On March 17, 2014 2:30:43 AM PDT, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Il 15/03/2014 23:42, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto: >> Stupid question... what instructions do NOT need emulsion in KVM? It >would seem that at least anything that touches memory would? > >Yes, indeed. Anything that touches memory can be used on MMIO and then > >needs emulation. > >Paolo > >> On March 15, 2014 1:01:58 PM PDT, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >>> MS HCK test fails on 32-bit Windows 8.1 due to missing MOVAPS >>> instruction emulation, this series adds it and while at it, >>> it adds emulation of MOVAPD which is trivial to implement on >>> top of MOVAPS. >>> >>> Igor Mammedov (2): >>> KVM: x86 emulator: emulate MOVAPS >>> KVM: x86 emulator: emulate MOVAPD >>> >>> arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 8 +++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
