From 00d1af4ee854b033a3cffa5abd1031a3c2da3b03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:03:24 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 5/6] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr dump
Signed-off-by: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com>
---
 tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c |    8 ++++++++
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c
index 5a69245..b3e4b2b 100644
--- a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c
+++ b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c
@@ -399,6 +399,13 @@ static void dump_tsc_adjust(void)
     printf("    TSC_ADJUST: tsc_adjust %" PRIx64 "\n",
p.tsc_adjust);
 }
 
+static void dump_msr_bndcfgs(void)
+{
+    HVM_SAVE_TYPE(MSR_BNDCFGS) p;
+    READ(p);
+    printf("    MSR_BNDCFGS: %" PRIx64 "\n",
p.msr_bndcfgs);
+}
+
 int main(int argc, char **argv)
 {
     int entry, domid;
@@ -467,6 +474,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
         case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VIRIDIAN_VCPU): dump_viridian_vcpu(); break;
         case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VMCE_VCPU): dump_vmce_vcpu(); break;
         case HVM_SAVE_CODE(TSC_ADJUST): dump_tsc_adjust(); break;
+        case HVM_SAVE_CODE(MSR_BNDCFGS): dump_msr_bndcfgs(); break;
         case HVM_SAVE_CODE(END): break;
         default:
             printf(" ** Don''t understand type %u:
skipping\n",
-- 
1.7.1
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 28.11.13 at 07:37, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@intel.com> wrote: > From 00d1af4ee854b033a3cffa5abd1031a3c2da3b03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:03:24 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH 5/6] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr dump > > Signed-off-by: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> > --- > tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c > index 5a69245..b3e4b2b 100644 > --- a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c > +++ b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c > @@ -399,6 +399,13 @@ static void dump_tsc_adjust(void) > printf(" TSC_ADJUST: tsc_adjust %" PRIx64 "\n", p.tsc_adjust); > } > > +static void dump_msr_bndcfgs(void) > +{ > + HVM_SAVE_TYPE(MSR_BNDCFGS) p; > + READ(p); > + printf(" MSR_BNDCFGS: %" PRIx64 "\n", p.msr_bndcfgs); > +} > + > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > int entry, domid; > @@ -467,6 +474,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VIRIDIAN_VCPU): dump_viridian_vcpu(); break; > case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VMCE_VCPU): dump_vmce_vcpu(); break; > case HVM_SAVE_CODE(TSC_ADJUST): dump_tsc_adjust(); break; > + case HVM_SAVE_CODE(MSR_BNDCFGS): dump_msr_bndcfgs(); break; > case HVM_SAVE_CODE(END): break; > default: > printf(" ** Don''t understand type %u: skipping\n",Any reason why this can''t (and really shouldn''t) be part of the previous patch? Jan
Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 28.11.13 at 07:37, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@intel.com> wrote: >> From 00d1af4ee854b033a3cffa5abd1031a3c2da3b03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 >> 2001 From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> >> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:03:24 +0800 >> Subject: [PATCH 5/6] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr dump >> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> >> --- >> tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >> index 5a69245..b3e4b2b 100644 >> --- a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >> +++ b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >> @@ -399,6 +399,13 @@ static void dump_tsc_adjust(void) >> printf(" TSC_ADJUST: tsc_adjust %" PRIx64 "\n", >> p.tsc_adjust); } >> >> +static void dump_msr_bndcfgs(void) >> +{ >> + HVM_SAVE_TYPE(MSR_BNDCFGS) p; >> + READ(p); >> + printf(" MSR_BNDCFGS: %" PRIx64 "\n", p.msr_bndcfgs); +} >> + >> int main(int argc, char **argv) >> { >> int entry, domid; >> @@ -467,6 +474,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VIRIDIAN_VCPU): dump_viridian_vcpu(); >> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VMCE_VCPU): dump_vmce_vcpu(); >> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(TSC_ADJUST): dump_tsc_adjust(); >> break; + case HVM_SAVE_CODE(MSR_BNDCFGS): dump_msr_bndcfgs(); >> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(END): break; >> default: >> printf(" ** Don''t understand type %u: skipping\n", > > Any reason why this can''t (and really shouldn''t) be part of the > previous patch? > > JanIt''s tools side, is it OK to merge w/ former patch? Thanks, Jinsong
>>> On 29.11.13 at 15:20, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@intel.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 28.11.13 at 07:37, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@intel.com> wrote: >>> From 00d1af4ee854b033a3cffa5abd1031a3c2da3b03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 >>> 2001 From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> >>> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:03:24 +0800 >>> Subject: [PATCH 5/6] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr dump >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> >>> --- >>> tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >>> index 5a69245..b3e4b2b 100644 >>> --- a/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >>> +++ b/tools/misc/xen-hvmctx.c >>> @@ -399,6 +399,13 @@ static void dump_tsc_adjust(void) >>> printf(" TSC_ADJUST: tsc_adjust %" PRIx64 "\n", >>> p.tsc_adjust); } >>> >>> +static void dump_msr_bndcfgs(void) >>> +{ >>> + HVM_SAVE_TYPE(MSR_BNDCFGS) p; >>> + READ(p); >>> + printf(" MSR_BNDCFGS: %" PRIx64 "\n", p.msr_bndcfgs); +} >>> + >>> int main(int argc, char **argv) >>> { >>> int entry, domid; >>> @@ -467,6 +474,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >>> case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VIRIDIAN_VCPU): dump_viridian_vcpu(); >>> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(VMCE_VCPU): dump_vmce_vcpu(); >>> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(TSC_ADJUST): dump_tsc_adjust(); >>> break; + case HVM_SAVE_CODE(MSR_BNDCFGS): dump_msr_bndcfgs(); >>> break; case HVM_SAVE_CODE(END): break; >>> default: >>> printf(" ** Don''t understand type %u: skipping\n", >> >> Any reason why this can''t (and really shouldn''t) be part of the >> previous patch? > > It''s tools side, is it OK to merge w/ former patch?Oh, right, I didn''t look at what files get modified and implied that - since you sent the patch directly to me - it would be hypervisor code. Keep it separate then; I''m sorry for the noise. Jan