From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.5 2/2] x86/hvm: Improve "Emulation
 failed @" error messages
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:09:24 +0100
Message-ID: <54255774.20109@citrix.com>
References: <1411726207-2689-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1411726207-2689-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<20140926120545.GB35563@deinos.phlegethon.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140926120545.GB35563@deinos.phlegethon.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 26/09/14 13:05, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 11:10 +0100 on 26 Sep (1411726207), Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> +static const char *guest_x86_mode_to_str(int mode)
>> +{
>> +    switch ( mode )
>> +    {
>> +    case 0:
>> +        return "Real";
>> +    case 1:
>> +        return "v8086";
>> +    case 2:
> return "16bit"?  
>
> Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
>
> While you're respinning, could you also shorten all of these strings
> (e.g. to real/vm86/16b/32b/64b), and trim the rest of the line,
> something like:
>
> (d1) MMIO emulation failed: d1v0 64b @ 0008:ffff82d080102fea: 48 63 8d 40 ff ff ff
>
> You can keep the reviewed-by regardless of whatever cosmetic changes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim.

As identified in the other thread, "16bit" is misleading as the
instruction bytes are actually 32bit code in a 16bit segment.

I am not sure what the best solution here is.  Perhaps we can trust
anyone capable of interpreting this error to know that "16b" != "Real"
or "v86" when it comes to decoding the instruction.

~Andrew