From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: VMX: Update instruction length on intercepted BP Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:13:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4B7BCF59.40402@redhat.com> References: <4B795FD0.4060505@siemens.com> <20100216073352.GV2995@redhat.com> <4B7A51D4.1040701@web.de> <20100216082455.GY2995@redhat.com> <4B7A612A.4010603@siemens.com> <20100217104304.GP2995@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3357 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751000Ab0BQLNg (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:13:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100217104304.GP2995@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/17/2010 12:43 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> And, again: This is an _existing_ user space ABI. We could only provide >> an alternative, but we have to maintain what is there at least for some >> longer grace period. >> >> > But it was always broken for SVM and was broken for VMX for a year and > nobody noticed, so may be instead of reintroducing old interface we should > do it right this time? > We need to fix the existing interface first, and then think long and hard if we want yet another interface, since we're likely to screw it up as well. The more interfaces we introduce, the harder maintenance becomes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function