>>> On 25.10.18 at 20:32, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/09/18 12:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >> @@ -1187,6 +1188,11 @@ static int _get_fpu( >> return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >> break; >> >> + case X86EMUL_FPU_opmask: >> + if ( !(xcr0 & X86_XCR0_SSE) || !(xcr0 & X86_XCR0_OPMASK) ) >> + return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >> + break; > > I see this follows the pattern from X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, but by the SSE > check? It is not relevant at this point - if xcr0.opmask is set, the > opmask instructions should be usable.
I would agree with you from a functional POV, but please see the last row of the table named "OS XSAVE Enabling Requirements of Instruction Categories" in SDM Vol 2. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
