From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takuya Yoshikawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Fix x86 emulator's fault propagations Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:42:05 +0900 Message-ID: <4B74A3DD.6050301@oss.ntt.co.jp> References: <20100210104541.e0f1fdd1.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20100210152757.GH24949@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: avi@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp ([222.151.198.100]:47440 "EHLO serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757682Ab0BLAj5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:39:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100210152757.GH24949@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: >> My motivation: What I want to achive by this >> work is to make the basic style of x86 emulator >> better for the following developments. Actually >> unless we handle the fault properly, our works >> implementing each instruction's emulation may >> end up with no effect. > Why do you want to emulate every instruction? > > -- > Gleb. No, I do not think we have to emulate every instruction. I might write something misleading. But I want to know which instructions or modes are not implemented yet but have to be implemented in the future, if they may effect to end users. We may get some questions like "Are there any instructions which are not supported by KVM?" in the future: because (advanced)customers will find "FIXME" in the source code.