From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: handle exit due to INVD in VMX
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:22:40 +0200
Message-ID: <20101031182240.GH2764@redhat.com>
References: <20101031143635.GW26191@redhat.com>
 <30710656-1B22-45B9-AC71-7EB744906A6C@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47732 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756228Ab0JaSWr (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:22:47 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <30710656-1B22-45B9-AC71-7EB744906A6C@suse.de>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:00:08AM -0700, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 31.10.2010, at 07:36, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> 
> > Call into emulator when INVD instruction is executed by a guest.
> 
> Why? This is a poor patch description.
Why what? Why we need to handle INVD exit instead of stopping with
unhandled exit error?

--
			Gleb.