On 09/21/2010 05:36 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/20/2010 07:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > >> static void __vmx_complete_interrupts(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, > >> u32 idt_vectoring_info, > >> int instr_len_field, > >> @@ -3864,9 +3814,6 @@ static void __vmx_complete_interrupts(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, > >> int type; > >> bool idtv_info_valid; > >> > >> - if (vmx->rmode.irq.pending) > >> - fixup_rmode_irq(vmx,&idt_vectoring_info); > >> - > > > >Don't you have to undo kvm_inject_realmode_interrupt if injection fails? > > > > > > Injection cannot fail (at least, in the same sense as the vmx > injections). It's actually not about failures, it's about guest > entry being cancelled due to a signal or some KVM_REQ that needs > attention. For vmx style injections, we need to undo the injection > to keep things in a consistent state. To realmode emulated > injection, everything is in a consistent state already, so no need > to undo anything (it's also impossible, since we overwrote memory on > the stack). Aren't you going to push EFLAGS,CS,EIP on the stack twice if that occurs?
No, since we clear the pending flag (we do that even for vmx-injected interrupts; then cancel or injection failure re-sets the flag).
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
