Re: [Xen-devel] Future x86 emulator direction

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:56 PM
> 
> >>> On 13.12.16 at 13:00, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > During the most recent Cambridge Hackathon (April 2016), there was a
> > suggestion made (sorry - I don't recall from whom) to feed the the
> > SVM/VMX intercept information into a slightly more general emulate
> > framework, rather than to try to implement common functionality in 3
> > separate locations.
> 
> I don't recall such a suggestion, so can you perhaps share a few
> more of the details? Is this to basically invoke the insn emulator
> here (once suitable extended)? If so, I think we may want to
> approach this the other direction - first make the emulator
> complete enough to be usable here, and only then funnel those
> code paths into it. And to be honest, on the road towards
> completion of the emulator I think the SVM/VMX insns are pretty
> close to the end of the priority list.
> 
> > On a different stance, we currently have multiple bits of code
> > implementing accessing/caching/updating of segment registers for hvm
> > guests.  With the introduction of the ->validate() hook, we should be
> > able to share all of this logic between the shadow and general emulation
> > paths, as it isn't use-dependent.
> 
> I fully agree that any elimination of code duplication is a good
> goal.
> 

yes, it's a good thing.

Thanks
Kevin

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