WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/13] Nested Virtualization: tools

To: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/13] Nested Virtualization: tools
From: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:03:40 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:04:18 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201011161252.51591.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <201011121940.26108.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> <20101116113706.GA24801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201011161252.51591.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
At 11:52 +0000 on 16 Nov (1289908371), Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:37:06 Tim Deegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 18:40 +0000 on 12 Nov (1289587225), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > +#define SVM_FEATURE_NPT            0x00000001
> > > +#define SVM_FEATURE_LBRV           0x00000002
> > > +#define SVM_FEATURE_SVML           0x00000004
> > > +#define SVM_FEATURE_NRIPS          0x00000008
> > > +#define SVM_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER    0x00000400
> > > +
> > > +        /* Only passthrough SVM features which are implemented */
> > > +        edx = 0;
> > > +        if (regs[3] & SVM_FEATURE_NPT)
> > > +            edx |= SVM_FEATURE_NPT;
> > > +        if (regs[3] & SVM_FEATURE_LBRV)
> > > +            edx |= SVM_FEATURE_LBRV;
> > > +        if (regs[3] & SVM_FEATURE_NRIPS)
> > > +            edx |= SVM_FEATURE_NRIPS;
> > > +        if (regs[3] & SVM_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER)
> > > +            edx |= SVM_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER;
> > > +
> > > +        regs[3] = edx;
> >
> > Minor niggle - why isn't this just a single &= operation?
> 
> The l1 guest shouldn't see upcoming svm features yet.
> They will be added here when support for them is implemented.

I meant: why don't you or together the feature flags you support
(which should probably be defined in a header file with the other CPUID
bits, btw) and just 'regs[3] &= SVM_FEAURE_FOO|SVM_FEATURE_BAR|...'
instead of using ten lines of code?

It's just a coding style niggle, not a logic error. 

Tim.


-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team
Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel