On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 22/24] Correct handling of idt vectoring info": > >I'm afraid I know very little about the SVM architecture. Does SVM even > >have > >a parallel of the IDT_VECTORING_INFO that this patch is trying to address? > > It does. exit_int_info. Thanks. I guess I need to do some serious reading on this subject. I guessed that exit_int_info was more of a parallel of VMX's vm_exit_intr_info field and not idt_vectoring_info, but I guess I was wrong. > >I agree that the nested SVM's handle_exit() looks cleaner that the parallel > >code in nested VMX. The root of all evil is that second exit decision point > >in the injection phase, and I'll think some more if I can find a way to > >avoid it without rocking the foundations too much. > > > > I think svm needs it too. Can you please clarify? I didn't understand what "it" refers to here. Thanks, Nadav. -- Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Sep 23 2010, 15 Tishri 5771 nyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Birthdays are good for you - the more you http://nadav.harel.org.il |have the longer you live. -- 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
