From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LhpXQ-0001Vp-9l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LhpXO-0001Vd-VP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41425 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LhpXO-0001Va-TF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:46 -0400 Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]:21312) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LhpXO-00009I-E2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:21:46 -0400 Received: from mail2.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lizzard.sbs.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2CILf0t006349 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:21:41 +0100 Received: from [139.25.109.167] (mchn012c.mchp.siemens.de [139.25.109.167] (may be forged)) by mail2.sbs.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2CILfYU012245 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:21:41 +0100 Message-ID: <49B952B4.6050505@siemens.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:21:40 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <49B7C31F.5030201@siemens.com> <20090311161010.GB18390@shareable.org> <49B7E760.2090100@siemens.com> <49B91E25.20102@redhat.com> <49B922F3.1000709@siemens.com> <20090312175809.GE14491@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20090312175809.GE14491@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RESEND][PATCH] x86: Enhanced dump of segment registers Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Jamie Lokier wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> I dropped any ideas to filter the output, -v2 is just a bug fix and code >> refactoring. > > The other thing I noticed, from your example, was LDT set to a null > selector but what might have been odd values in the descriptor cache > for LDT. I wonder if that's correct emulation behaviour? The flags doesn't matter (they are set during CPU reset, but I'm even unsure if there is any code evaluation them except cpu_dump_state). As the limit is 0, any attempt to load a descriptor from that LDT will raise an exception - on real hw as in the emulation. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux