Re: [PATCH for-4.5 v8 4/7] xen: Add vmware_port support

[Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>]

On 01/26/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.01.15 at 16:58, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>> On 01/22/15 03:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 21.01.15 at 18:52, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/16/15 05:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03.10.14 at 00:40, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:

...

> 
> As stated before - if feasible, 8 would seem the best option. The
> second best one would be to support all four I/O insns (assuming
> VMware supports all of them too) with any legal (even if pointless
> or redundant) prefix combination, and with the prefixes actually
> doing something correctly emulated.
> 

Ok, I will focus on hvm_emulate_one.


>>>> So there are 3 options here:
>>>> 1) Add an ASSERT() like the BUG_ON() in get_instruction_length()
>>>> 2) Switch to using get_instruction_length()
>>>> 3) Switch to using MAX_INST_LEN.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know which way to go.
>>> As said above - use get_instruction_length() if Intel confirms the
>>> necessary hardware behavior as being architectural. If they
>>> don't, 3) looks like the only viable option.
>>
>>
>> So what is the procedure to getting "Intel confirms the necessary hardware
>> behaviour as being architectural"?
> 
> There's no procedure. Ask them explicitly (i.e. perhaps outside of
> this thread, where the question may end up being well hidden from
> their eyes), and then ping them until they give you a statement one
> way or another.
> 

I am assuming that:

INTEL(R) VT FOR X86 (VT-X)
M:      Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
M:      Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>
M:      Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>

Is to correct list of people to ask.

   -Don Slutz


> Jan
>