[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: x86: remove duplicated IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL MSR macro
Hi Kevin, Jan, Thanks for comments. On 6/24/2016 11:31 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.06.16 at 12:56, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: kaih.linux@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:kaih.linux@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 6:45 PM --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/msr-index.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/msr-index.h @@ -133,12 +133,13 @@ #define MSR_IA32_VMX_TRUE_EXIT_CTLS 0x48f #define MSR_IA32_VMX_TRUE_ENTRY_CTLS 0x490 #define MSR_IA32_VMX_VMFUNC 0x491 -#define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR 0x3a +#define MSR_IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL 0x3aInstead of moving MSR definition up here, better move all related lines down since original place is more sorted regarding to 0x3a.I agree. Sure. I'll move this macro down, along with the bit macros. #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_LOCK 0x0001 #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_VMXON_INSIDE_SMX 0x0002 #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_VMXON_OUTSIDE_SMX 0x0004 #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_SENTER_PARAM_CTL 0x7f00 #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_SENTER 0x8000 +#define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_SGX_ENABLE 0x40000suppose above macros better be changed in same style? Or is it really meaningful to keep whole MSR name in every bit definition? Is it clearly enough to just keep strings after _MSR_?I partly agree. The _MSR_ infix is clearly pointless. I wouldn't, however, like to see the IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_ prefix dropped, as it helps associating the bits with their MSR. Sure. I think we can have consensus on just removing the _MSR_ infix, so the bit macros will be like IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_LOCK, IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_ENABLE, etc? Thanks, -Kai Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |