On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 31.10.2010, at 11:22, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:00:08AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 31.10.2010, at 07:36, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >>> Call into emulator when INVD instruction is executed by a guest. > >> > >> Why? This is a poor patch description. > > Why what? Why we need to handle INVD exit instead of stopping with > > unhandled exit error? > > Ah, so we get the exit already, but don't handle it? That's an important piece of information that belongs in the patch description. Another thing I as a reader would also like to know is where this got triggered, so which guests would break without the patch. > I'll add it to the patch description. The guest that triggered it was open firmware, but I do not think this info belongs to patch description too. > I'm also wondering why nobody has seen it before. Is this a regression? Is this exit a side-effect of another feature bit of VMX, so only newer CPUs are affected? > I guess nobody seen it because not many guests use the instruction. Actually this instruction is useful only for firmware use. This is not a regression. -- Gleb. -- 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
