Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 25/31] xen/x86: Common infrastructure for levelling context switching

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ integer_param("cpuid_mask_ext_edx", opt_cpuid_mask_ext_edx);
>  unsigned int __initdata expected_levelling_cap;
>  unsigned int __read_mostly levelling_caps;
>  
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpumasks, cpumasks);
> +struct cpumasks __read_mostly cpumask_defaults;

Any reason these can't be introduced when first used? (The question
really applies to the rest of this patch too, I guess.)

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h
> @@ -585,6 +585,21 @@ int microcode_resume_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
>   */
>  extern unsigned int expected_levelling_cap, levelling_caps;
>  
> +struct cpumasks
> +{
> +    uint64_t _1cd;
> +    uint64_t e1cd;
> +    uint64_t Da1;
> +    uint64_t _6c;
> +    uint64_t _7ab0;
> +};

While I see the need for these underscore prefixes with the
current naming scheme, perhaps it would be better to make
this fully consistent with the acronym #define-s, by e.g.
prefixing the base ones with 'b'? Such full naming consistency
would allow for string concatenation in macros, should such a
possibility ever arise, no matter whether manifest constants
or structure members here are needed to be accessed.

As to the name of the structure itself - perhaps better
cpuidmasks?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel