Mailing List Archive

On 18 May 2006, at 20:11, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:

> Hi Keir, Ian,
>    Attached patch implements masking of some of the cupid bits from
> the guest. It also cleans up the previous cupid handling code.
> Please apply and/or comment.

I think the choice of macros is a bit bizarre. Do you really need to
have a set of CPU_LEAF_n=n macros? How does that help? Also the
FOO_RESERVED_first_last=bitmask I don't really find helpful -- most of
us can read a bitmask!

Those lines of patch could more usefully be used defining macros, or
simply adding a multi-line comment or two, which describe what the bits
you are masking actually *do*. What features are you masking, and why?

-- Keir


> Signed-Off-By: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> Signed-Off-By: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
>  
> Thanks & Regards,
> Nitin
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Open Source Technology Center, Intel Corp
>  
> <cpuid_9.patch>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel