Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 08/11] pvh/acpi: Handle ACPI accesses for PVH guests

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/22/2016 11:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 22.11.16 at 16:30, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/22/2016 10:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > +    const static uint8_t pm1a_mask[4] = {ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_STATUS,
> > 0,
> > > > +                                         ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_ENABLE,
> > 0};
> > > > +    const static uint8_t gpe0_mask[4] = {1U << XEN_GPE0_CPUHP_BIT, 0,
> > > > +                                         1U << XEN_GPE0_CPUHP_BIT, 0};
> > > Hmm, funny, in someone else's patch I've recently seen the same.
> > > Can we please stick to the more standard "storage type first"
> > > ordering of declaration elements. After all const modifies the type,
> > > and hence better stays together with it.
> > >
> > > And then I'd like to have an explanation (in the commit message)
> > > about the choice of the values for pm1a_mask.
> > Sure (Lock status/enable is required)
> And nothing else is? And there's no other implementation
> required for the lock bit?
The other part is the global lock itself, which is part of the FACS that 
we allocate in build.c
-boris

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