From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: xsave=0 workaround needed on 3.2 kernels with Xen 4.1 or Xen-unstable. Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:55:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA852D3.7060104@goop.org> References: <20120430193713.GA12817@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4FA113B902000078000810C3@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <4FA268CD02000078000814E4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <4FA792C00200007800081F06@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FA792C00200007800081F06@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: weidong.han@intel.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Tim.Deegan@citrix.com, xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/07/2012 12:15 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > The primary thing that strikes me as odd is that both calls are still > indirect ones, even though I thought that they should get replaced > by direct ones (or even the actual instruction, namely in the > read_cr4() case) upon first use. Konrad, Jeremy - am I wrong here? Patching happens as an explicit step during (moderately late) boot, not as a side-effect of the first call, so it doesn't surprise me too much that they haven't been updated at this point. J