From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 27/32] xen/x86: allow HVM guests to use
 hypercalls to bring up vCPUs
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:33:24 +0100
Message-ID: <56168CC4.1020408@citrix.com>
References: <1443800943-17668-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1443800943-17668-28-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<561250B0.8050600@citrix.com> <56167107.5030008@citrix.com>
	<5616A63402000078000A96DA@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=71687dc37=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZkDCd-0000OL-Nl
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:33:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5616A63402000078000A96DA@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/10/15 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 08.10.15 at 15:35, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> El 05/10/15 a les 12.28, Andrew Cooper ha escrit:
>>> On 02/10/15 16:48, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>> +#define SEG(b, l, a)                                                    \
>>>> +    (struct segment_register){ .sel = 0, .base = (b), .limit = (l),     \
>>>> +                               .attr.bytes = (a) }
>>>> +        cs = SEG(0, ~0u, 0xa9b); /* 64bit code segment. */
>>>> +        ds = ss = es = SEG(0, ~0u, 0xc93);
>>>> +        tr = SEG(0, 0x67, 0x8b); /* 64bit TSS (busy). */
>>>> +#undef SEG
>>> I would be tempted to get rid of this macro entirely.  The other macro
>>> was to hide all the regs-> references, but this is entirely from constants.
>> IMHO I think it makes the code easier to understand, but I'm not going
>> to argue about it. Does anyone else has a preference whether to remove
>> the macro or not?
> I'd be slightly in favor of keeping it, unless Andrew is heavily opposed.

Not sufficiently fussed.  Keep it.

~Andrew