Re: [PATCH] xen: x86: remove duplicated IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL MSR macro

From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@linux.intel.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	"kaih.linux@gmail.com" <kaih.linux@gmail.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: "andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: x86: remove duplicated IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL MSR macro
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:16:12 +1200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <eddff572-b16a-a720-d857-0d48a17b4be8@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <576D361E02000078000F885A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>

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@intel.com> wrote:
>>>  From: kaih.linux@gmail.com [mailto:kaih.linux@gmail.com]
>>> 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                0x3a
>>
>> Instead 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               0x40000
>>
>> suppose 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@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel