[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190429073625.GA2324@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:36:25 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Chen, Jason CJ" <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/4] x86/acrn: Add hypercall for ACRN guest
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24:12AM +0800, Zhao, Yakui wrote:
> Yes. "movq" only indicates explicitly that it is 64-bit mov as ACRN guest
> only works under 64-bit mode.
> I also check the usage of "mov" and "movq" in this scenario. There is no
> difference except that the movq is an explicit 64-op.
Damn, I'm tired of explaining this: it is explicit only to the code
reader. gcc generates the *same* instruction no matter whether it has a
"q" suffix or not as long as the destination register is a 64-bit one.
If you prefer to have it explicit, sure, use "movq".
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists