From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L7W7j-0007LJ-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:21:11 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L7W7f-0007Kt-BF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:21:11 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40855 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L7W7f-0007Kq-3B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:21:07 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:52095) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L7W7e-0005R8-RT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:21:07 -0500 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB2EKKqh001686 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:20:20 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mB2EKelF223266 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:20:42 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mB2EKdt6006851 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:20:39 -0700 Message-ID: <49354433.7060706@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:20:35 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1228161692-13200-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4935264A.4050006@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4935264A.4050006@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] extboot: properly set int 0x13 return value Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Glauber Costa , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > Applied, thanks. > >> >> -.macro clc >> - push %ax >> - pushf >> - pop %ax >> - and $(~FLAGS_CF), %ax >> - push %ax >> - popf >> - pop %ax >> > > Anthony, any reason you did not use the 'clc' instruction instead of a > macro? Propensity for pain? I have no idea. I assume I had a reason at the time. Probably debug related. Regards, Anthony Liguori