From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] x86: Adding structs to reflect cpuid fields
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:19:46 +0200
Message-ID: <20140918071945.GA24842@nazgul.tnic>
References: <20140917124501.GC5358@nazgul.tnic>
 <1410958454-7501-1-git-send-email-namit@cs.technion.ac.il>
 <1410958454-7501-2-git-send-email-namit@cs.technion.ac.il>
 <20140917132141.GD5358@nazgul.tnic>
 <CAKLkAJ5wYuDL+96RcRwxi7xD1iAK8_oug1zC_niipV-ToCUu=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140917140601.GE5358@nazgul.tnic>
 <20140917150433.GC1273@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <20140917152221.GF5358@nazgul.tnic>
 <20140918002953.GA6918@potion.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@cs.technion.ac.il>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:42687 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756113AbaIRHT5 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Sep 2014 03:19:57 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140918002953.GA6918@potion.redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 02:29:54AM +0200, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 w=
rote:
> I think you proposed to use magic constant in place of of MASK_FAM_X,=
 so

Huh, what?

> Second problem:  Most elements don't begin at offset 0, so the usual
> retrieval would add a shift, (repurposing max_monitor_line_size)

So what?

>  max_monitor_line_size =3D (cpuid & MASK_FAM_X) >> OFFSET_FAM_X;
>=20
> and it's not better when we write it back after doing stuff.

Writing back CPUID on baremetal? You can't be serious.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous so I'll stop wasting time. I stand by my
initial statement - this is a bad idea.

--=20
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--