Re: [Xen-devel] [V6 2/4] x86/xsaves: enable xsaves/xrstors/xsavec in xen

[Shuai Ruan <shuai.ruan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:49:12AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.10.15 at 08:07, <shuai.ruan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -2257,9 +2261,14 @@ static int hvm_load_cpu_xsave_states(struct domain 
> > *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> >      v->arch.xcr0_accum = ctxt->xcr0_accum;
> >      if ( ctxt->xcr0_accum & XSTATE_NONLAZY )
> >          v->arch.nonlazy_xstate_used = 1;
> > -    memcpy(v->arch.xsave_area, &ctxt->save_area,
> > -           min(desc->length, size) - offsetof(struct hvm_hw_cpu_xsave,
> > -           save_area));
> > +    if ( (cpu_has_xsaves || cpu_has_xsavec) )
> > +        compress_xsave_states(v, &ctxt->save_area,
> > +                              min(desc->length, size) -
> > +                              offsetof(struct hvm_hw_cpu_xsave,save_area));
> > +    else
> > +        memcpy(v->arch.xsave_area, &ctxt->save_area,
> > +               min(desc->length, size) - offsetof(struct hvm_hw_cpu_xsave,
> > +               save_area));
> 
> Each time I look at these two hunks I wonder whether the condition
> and memcpy() wouldn't better move into the new called functions.
> 
Will func name 
void load_xsave_area(struct vcpu *v, struct hvm_hw_cpu_xsave *ctxt)
void save_xsave_area(struct vcpu *v, struct hvm_hw_cpu_xsave *ctxt)
Ok ?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel