Re: [PATCH RFC 1/9] x86/traps: Names for system descriptor types

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 15/05/14 11:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.05.14 at 11:48, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Avoids some particularly obscure magic numbers
> Very desirable. A small comment below.
>
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/desc.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/desc.h
>> @@ -98,6 +98,14 @@
>>  
>>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>  
>> +/* System Descriptor types in the GDT */
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_ldt       (2)
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_tss_avail (9)
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_tss_busy  (11)
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_call_gate (12)
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_irq_gate  (14)
>> +#define DESC_TYPE_trap_gate (15)
> Either you say GDT/IDT in the comment, or you separate the GDT
> ones from the IDT ones.

Will say GDT/IDT.  These type numbers generic across both tables.

>
> Plus the comment is missing a stop.
>
> And finally I don't think the parentheses are warranted here.
>
> Jan
>

Ok.  Any views on SYS_DESC_xxx ?  I think I prefer it slightly, and
would allow removal of the _gate suffix, which would not be useful in
context.

~Andrew