Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 10:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > 
> > Is having separate bit numbers and masks useful?  If so, is it worth
> > doing for the others?
> > 
> 
> I presume it's useful, or at least *used* in the current code, since 
> that was there already.  If deemed useful, it's something we could add 
> to the other bitmasks.

I don't think it needs to be done now, as long as it follows a clear
convention.  I'd prefer eg. X86_EFLAGS_IF_BIT == 9, X86_EFLAGS_IF ==
512, but _X86_EFLAGS_IF seems to be the current practice.

Cheers,
Rusty.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [no subject]
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [KJ] remove SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros (corrected)
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros
• Next by thread: [PATCH] Fix race between attach_task and cpuset_exit
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]