From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
To: Trolle Selander <trolle.selander@gmail.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] More fp instructions for realmode emulation (Enables booting OS/2 as a HVM guest on Intel/VT hardware)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:46:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C3EEC883.148C1%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <515922b50802291414q79cd34c9o36eb103811e7f206@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]
Regarding point 1: Don¹t FPU instructions that raise an exception only log
that in the status word, to be picked up by the next FPU instruction which
checks for exceptions? It strikes me that we can have previously loaded up a
status word that requires an exception to occur on FWAIT, in which case
semantics are broken. More worryingly, if any of the instructions you have
added can cause an exception, we will crash Xen because you have not added
fixup handling. Unfortunately I¹m not really up on exactly how FPU exception
handling works: are you?
Regarding point 2: Yes, direct use of the FPU instructions is fine as we
already loaded guest FPU context.
-- Keir
On 29/2/08 22:14, "Trolle Selander" <trolle.selander@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a little concerned about the "correctness" of the FSTSW emulation and the
> use of inline assembly directly using the corresponding ops for emulation. Wrt
> FSTSW, it is really two ops FNSTSW immediately preceeded by an FWAIT. I've
> left FWAIT defined, but a no-op because after looking at realmode.c it seems
> in the emulation, exceptions are always processed if a call to x86_emulate
> returns an exception, so there should be no way for there to be "pending"
> exceptions for FWAIT to wait for. I may have missed something, though, hence
> the RFC.
>
> Secondly, about the inline assembly - i saw that this was how many of the
> other FP instructions were done, so I did it that way as well. However, none
> of the previous instructions done that way referenced the fp registers. Does
> this make a difference, or is it ok the way i've done it here?
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2180 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-01 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-29 22:14 [PATCH] [RFC] More fp instructions for realmode emulation (Enables booting OS/2 as a HVM guest on Intel/VT hardware) Trolle Selander
2008-03-01 8:46 ` Keir Fraser [this message]
2008-03-01 9:18 ` Keir Fraser
2008-03-03 12:18 ` Trolle Selander
2008-03-03 12:21 ` Keir Fraser
2008-03-03 14:52 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-03 15:00 ` Keir Fraser
2008-03-03 16:59 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-03 17:30 ` Keir Fraser
2008-03-03 18:11 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-04 10:13 ` Keir Fraser
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C3EEC883.148C1%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--to=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=trolle.selander@gmail.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.