On Thu, Aug 17, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote: > > > On 8/16/2023 10:38 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote: > > > > > > On 8/16/2023 6:51 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Rather than call out individual use case, I would simply state that as of this > > > > patch, X86EMUL_F_BRANCH and X86EMUL_F_FETCH are identical as far as KVM is > > > > concernered. That let's the reader know that (a) there's no intended change in > > > > behavior and (b) that the intent is to effectively split all consumption of > > > > X86EMUL_F_FETCH into (X86EMUL_F_FETCH | X86EMUL_F_BRANCH). > > > How about this: > > > > > > KVM: x86: Use a new flag for branch targets > > > > > > Use the new flag X86EMUL_F_BRANCH instead of X86EMUL_F_FETCH in > > > assign_eip() > > > to distinguish instruction fetch and branch target computation for > > > feature(s) > > Just "features", i.e. no parentheses... > > > > > that handle differently on them. > > ...and tack on ", e.g. LASS and LAM." at the end. > OK, but only LASS here, since LAM only applies to addresses for data > accesses, i.e, no need to distingush the two flag. Oh, right. Thanks!
