Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/vmware: Add a header file for hypercall definitions

[Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware)]

On 8/20/19 3:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware) wrote:
>
> > On 8/20/19 1:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 04:33:14PM +0200, Thomas HellstrÃm (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/>