On 03/26/2011 01:06 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:37:42AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/25/2011 11:29 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> This patch adds all necessary intercept checks for
>> instructions that access the crX registers.
>>
>>
>> @@ -3871,11 +3871,89 @@ static void svm_fpu_deactivate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> update_cr0_intercept(svm);
>> }
>>
>> +#define POST_EX(exit) { .exit_code = (exit), \
>> + .stage = x86_icpt_post_except, \
>> + .valid = true }
>> +
>> +static struct __x86_intercept {
>> + u32 exit_code;
>> + enum x86_intercept_stage stage;
>> + bool valid;
>
> Isn't .valid always true, even in later patches?
The rational here was that the arrary below may not be fully populated
in the future and the svm_check_intercept function needs a way to find
out if it retrieved a populated value. Checks for zero values don't work
because exit_code and stage could both be zero and valid. So I added an
extra field to check that.
Of course, for some reason I had in my mind a full array with a search
for the index, not a sparse array with direct access.
--
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
