From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/30] x86/cpu: Common infrastructure for
 levelling context switching
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:46:46 +0000
Message-ID: <56C44F96.20408@citrix.com>
References: <1454679743-18133-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1454679743-18133-18-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<56C33CFA02000078000D2AD2@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<56C43A3C02000078000D2F0D@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>
In-Reply-To: <56C43A3C02000078000D2F0D@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>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 17/02/16 08:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.02.16 at 15:15, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05.02.16 at 14:42, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
>>> @@ -574,6 +574,34 @@ void microcode_set_module(unsigned int);
>>>  int microcode_update(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(const_void), unsigned long len);
>>>  int microcode_resume_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
>>>  
>>> +#define LCAP_faulting (1U << 0)
>>> +#define LCAP_1cd      (3U << 1)
>>> +#define LCAP_e1cd     (3U << 3)
>>> +#define LCAP_Da1      (1U << 5)
>>> +#define LCAP_6c       (1U << 6)
>>> +#define LCAP_7ab0     (3U << 7)
>> I guess the cases where the mask has two set bits is when two
>> CPUID output registers are being controlled, but I don't see
>> what use that pairing is going to be. But with the patch
>> supposedly going to make sense only in the context of the
>> following ones, I'll see (and I'd presumably be able to ack this
>> one then also only when having seen the others).
> Having seen patches up to and including 21, I still don't see the
> point of using 2-bit masks here.

The previous sysctl interface had individual bits.  I suppose that now I
have dropped that, these could return to single bits.

~Andrew