From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030790AbXDKELK (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:11:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030796AbXDKELK (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:11:10 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:41344 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030790AbXDKELI (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:11:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros From: Rusty Russell To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Virtualization In-Reply-To: <461BC9DE.5030009@zytor.com> References: <200704101648.l3AGmT5e027601@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> <461BC350.4040403@goop.org> <461BC9DE.5030009@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:11:06 +1000 Message-Id: <1176264666.26372.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.