On 26/10/2018 15:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 26.10.18 at 16:22, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 26/10/2018 14:31, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 15.10.18 at 12:36, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c >>>> @@ -323,6 +323,18 @@ void free_vcpu_struct(struct vcpu *v) >>>> free_xenheap_page(v); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +/* Initialise various registers to their architectural INIT/RESET state. >>>> */ >>>> +void arch_vcpu_regs_init(struct vcpu *v) >>>> +{ >>>> + v->arch.user_regs = (typeof(v->arch.user_regs)){ >>>> + .rflags = X86_EFLAGS_MBS, >>>> + }; >>> Sadly this initializer broke the build once again for gcc 4.3.x. >> Oh - that's unfortunate. I guess it will need a memset instead. > Or we finally need to bump the minimum version we're happy with. > >>> (As a side note, using .eflags instead of .rflags would have a >>> fair chance of an omitted REX prefix.) >> You specifically requested rflags over eflags in your previous review. > Did I? I haven't been able to find v1 of this patch at all in the archives > (going back to May), or in my inbox (using just part of the title for > searching). Was that posted in private, or under a different title? I'm > trying to figure why I would have asked for that...
<[email protected]> This series is the fairly non-controversial parts of the original full series, because there is no point delaying getting it in. I'm still fighting with the monitor framework, which is a prerequisite to being able to fix #DB injection in the VT-x and SVM code. ~Andrew
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
