On 01/09/2012 04:47 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 09.01.2012, at 23:39, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 01/09/2012 04:17 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 09.01.2012, at 22:48, Scott Wood wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/09/2012 11:48 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> I'm having a hard time to grasp when shared->msr, shadow_msr and regs->msr is used in your code :). >>>> >>>> shadow_msr is the real MSR. >>>> >>>> shared->msr is the guest's view of MSR. >> >> Correction -- this applies to PR-mode (e500v2). >> >> In GS-mode, shadow_msr is not used. The guest sees the real MSR (hw >> silently prevents it from modifying certain bits), which gets saved on >> exit into shared->msr. > > Hrm. Can we maybe #ifdef out shadow_msr on HV then? I'm really getting confused with having 3 potential msr variables in the vcpu struct. An ifdef would take us further down the road of not being able to support both in the same kernel image (not sure whether that's a long-term goal -- probably won't happen any time soon with e500v2+e500mc even disregarding KVM, but maybe it'll be relevant on some other chips), and in general increase the mess in the struct definition. How about a comment? -Scott -- 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
