Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/faulting: Use formal defines instead of opencoded bits

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.02.14 at 12:02, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@
>  static unsigned int probe_intel_cpuid_faulting(void)
>  {
>       uint64_t x;
> -     return !rdmsr_safe(MSR_INTEL_PLATFORM_INFO, x) && (x & (1u<<31));
> +     return !rdmsr_safe(MSR_INTEL_PLATFORM_INFO, x) &&
> +            (x & PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING);

Indentation (a single hard tab ought to come first at least).

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/msr-index.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/msr-index.h
> @@ -486,7 +486,12 @@
>  
>  /* Intel cpuid faulting MSRs */
>  #define MSR_INTEL_PLATFORM_INFO              0x000000ce
> +#define _PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING        31
> +#define PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING (1ULL << _PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING)
> +
>  #define MSR_INTEL_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES      0x00000140
> +#define _MISC_FEATURES_CPUID_FAULTING        0
> +#define MISC_FEATURES_CPUID_FAULTING (1ULL << _MISC_FEATURES_CPUID_FAULTING)

I wonder whether, from a name space pov, it wouldn't be better
if these new constants had at least MSR_ as additional prefix. Both
are rather generic without...

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel