lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] x86/vmware: Add a header file for hypercall definitions
From
Date
On 8/20/19 3:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>
>> On 8/20/19 1:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 04:33:14PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>>>
>>>> +#define VMWARE_HYPERCALL \
>>>> + ALTERNATIVE_2(".byte 0xed", \
>>>> + ".byte 0x0f, 0x01, 0xc1", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMCALL, \
>>>> + ".byte 0x0f, 0x01, 0xd9", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL)
>>> For sanity, could we either add comments, or macros for those
>>> instrucions?
>> Hmm. Here I followed and slightly extended what was done in asm/kvm_para.h.
>>
>> What confuses me a bit is, if it's clarity we're after, why don't people use
>>
>> #define VMWARE_HYPERCALL \
>> ALTERNATIVE_2("inl (%%dx)", \
>> "vmcall", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMCALL, \
>> "vmmcall", X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL)
>>
>> Seems to build fine here. Is it fear of old assemblers not supporting, for
>> example vmmcall
> The requirement for binutils is version >= 2.21. If 2.21 supports vmcall and
> vmmcall all good.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx

So I tested 2.20.1 and 2.21.1 from ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils, and both
seem to assemble (as-new) and disassemble (objdump -S) vmcall and
vmmcall fine so I think we should be OK using the mnemonic format then.

Thanks,

Thomas




<https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-20 21:20    [W:0.065 / U:6.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site