On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/26/2010 03:04 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >
> >>I'm still not convinced on this way of doing things. If it's static,
> >>make it static. If it's dynamic, make it dynamic. Dynamically
> >>generating a static list just sounds plain wrong to me.
> >Stop. I had a static list in the first version of the patch. This list
> >was fine except the fact that a developer needs to remember to update
> >this list if the list of non-intercepted msrs is expanded. The whole
> >reason for a dynamically built list is to take the task of maintaining
> >the list away from the developer and remove a possible source of hard to
> >find bugs. This is what the current approach does.
>
> The problem was the two lists. If you had a
>
> static struct svm_direct_access_msrs = {
> u32 index;
> bool longmode_only;
> } direct_access_msrs = {
> ...
> };
>
> You could generate
>
> static unsigned *msrpm_offsets_longmode, *msrpm_offsets_legacy;
>
> as well as the original bitmaps at module init, no?
True for the msrs the guest always has access too. But for the lbr-msrs
the intercept bits may change at runtime. So an addtional flag is
required to indicate if the bits should be cleared initially.
Joerg
--
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
