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

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/02/14 11:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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
>

How about MSR_INTEL_ to match their MSR number names?

~Andrew

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