On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 22/24] Correct handling of idt vectoring info":
quoted text
> >I'm afraid I know very little about the SVM architecture. Does SVM even 
> >have
> >a parallel of the IDT_VECTORING_INFO that this patch is trying to address?
> 
> It does. exit_int_info.

Thanks. I guess I need to do some serious reading on this subject. I guessed
that exit_int_info was more of a parallel of VMX's vm_exit_intr_info field and
not idt_vectoring_info, but I guess I was wrong.

quoted text
> >I agree that the nested SVM's handle_exit() looks cleaner that the parallel
> >code in nested VMX. The root of all evil is that second exit decision point
> >in the injection phase, and I'll think some more if I can find a way to
> >avoid it without rocking the foundations too much.
> >
> 
> I think svm needs it too.

Can you please clarify? I didn't understand what "it" refers to here.

Thanks,
Nadav.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |    Thursday, Sep 23 2010, 15 Tishri 5771
nyh@math.technion.ac.il             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Birthdays are good for you - the more you
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |have the longer you live.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html