Re: xTVAL Compliance restriction proposal
You said:toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Sign extend if translated
Zero extend otherwise (I don’t think that’s is quite the same as Bare+Mmode because of MPRV, and not sure how hypervisor modes affect that)
Then you said that the extension would be from the highest address bit- but if VA>PA, isn’t that effectively zero extending the PA even in bare mode? That seems to contradict the first statement.
As usual, I’m probably interpreting something which might be interpreted more than one way in exactly the wrong way- that is my superpower. What am I getting wrong? Compliance wants to know!
On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Greg Favor <gfavor@...> wrote: