On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04:57AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > There are two three opcode tables, so third_opcode_byte is ambiguous. > > Actually there's also 0F_3A and there are also other prefixes besides f0 > and f1. Oh, and those tables are not completely full so I can imagine > more stuff coming in later.... > > I know what you're thinking by now, btw :-) > :) > > What about pfx_0f_38_f0 and pfx_0f_38_f1? > > Yeah, those make it much more explicit. > > I wanted to keep the "three_byte" in the name in there somewhere, > though, so that it is clear that we're dealing with three byte opcodes > instead of requiring the onlooking innocent person to know the opcodes. > > How about: > > three_byte_0f_38_f0 > three_byte_0f_38_f1 > three_byte_0f_3a_50 > ... > > Last one is an example only. > Looks OK to me. > Btw, we might want to reconsider that whole tabular representation when > more stuff needs to be added... > Of course. When tables will start to show their limitation we can always change to something else. -- 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
