From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: lguest: unhandled trap 13 and CONFIG_MICROCODE_INTEL_EARLY Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 07:51:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5187C369.5020902@zytor.com> References: <1367450300.11532.32.camel@x61.thuisdomein> <87li7srb3r.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87li7srb3r.fsf-8n+1lVoiYb80n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: lguest-bounces+glkvl-lguest=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "Lguest" To: Rusty Russell Cc: xen-devel-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , lguest-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/05/2013 09:22 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > > HPA, how about we extend the KEEP_SEGMENTS flag to mean "don't touch > privileged registers" in general? That's what it used to do when it > was introduced, and AFAIK only lguest uses it. Xen folk CC'd. > KEEP_SEGMENTS was introduced at the request of Xen, not lguest. I'm a bit concerned about extending it as I don't know what else might end up being affected. On that subject, I would genuinely like to have a discussion of the value vs. pain of continuing to support lguest. It has not been a *huge* problem, especially not compared to Xen, but core paravirtualization has turned out to be a maintenance nightmare and it has had an enormous negative impact on development work. That being said, lguest really hasn't been a huge problem, but partly it is a "level of support" thing... -hpa