From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Liu, Jinsong" Subject: Re: [PATCH V4.1] mcheck, vmce: Allow vmce_amd_* functions to handle AMD thresolding MSRs Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1392247608-6960-1-git-send-email-aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <52FC927D020000780011BF0A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <52FD0079.8050601@amd.com> <52FD0DCC.1030904@amd.com> <52FDE1CE020000780011C575@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52FDE1CE020000780011C575@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , "chegger@amazon.de" , Aravind Gopalakrishnan Cc: "boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Sorry, Jan and Aravind, I just return from long Chinese Spring Festival vacation. I will review the thread ASAP. Thanks, Jinsong Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 13.02.14 at 19:24, Aravind Gopalakrishnan >>>> > wrote: >> On 2/13/2014 11:27 AM, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: >>> On 2/13/2014 2:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> *val = 0; >>>>> - switch ( msr & (MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL | 3) ) >>>>> + /* Allow only first 3 MC banks into switch() */ >>>>> + switch ( msr & (-MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL | 3) ) >>>>> { >>>>> case MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL: >>>>> /* stick all 1's to MCi_CTL */ >>>> I'm confused: You now add a comment as if the mask was including >>>> bit 4, which it doesn't. What am I missing? >>> >>> Darn. Sorry about that. Will fix.. >> >> Jan, >> >> Do let me know if the following wording is fine: >> >> /* >> * Apply mask to allow bits[0:1] (necessary to uniquely identify >> MC0) >> * MC1 is handled by virtue of 'bank' value. >> */ >> >> If not, I'm open to suggestions:) > > I don't particularly like this, but I also don't have a good > alternative suggestion. It was Christoph who asked for a comment in > the first place. Since I don't see a particular need for a comment > here, you > two should work out what best suits both of you. > > Jan