From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: Add XSAVE unit test Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:08:38 +0300 Message-ID: <4C04CE16.4090504@redhat.com> References: <1275304621-29668-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <4C04C9F9.3080703@redhat.com> <201006011700.36129.sheng@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Sheng Yang Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52514 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752807Ab0FAJIk (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:08:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201006011700.36129.sheng@linux.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/01/2010 12:00 PM, Sheng Yang wrote: > On Tuesday 01 June 2010 16:51:05 Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 05/31/2010 02:17 PM, Sheng Yang wrote: >> >>> Only test legal action so far, we can extend it later. >>> >> The legal actions are tested by guests, so it's more important for unit >> tests to check illegal (and potentially subversive) actions. >> > Yes. This is just the first step. I think we need construct IDT and use something > similar to fixup exception table. That's not a quick work, and we need some base > for it. > Sure, it's fine to proceed in steps. We do need a framework for trapping exceptions. There's a bit in access.flat (also for running code from cpl 3), we could generalize it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function