linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:11:06 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 10:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > 
> > Is having separate bit numbers and masks useful?  If so, is it worth
> > doing for the others?
> > 
> 
> I presume it's useful, or at least *used* in the current code, since 
> that was there already.  If deemed useful, it's something we could add 
> to the other bitmasks.

I don't think it needs to be done now, as long as it follows a clear
convention.  I'd prefer eg. X86_EFLAGS_IF_BIT == 9, X86_EFLAGS_IF ==
512, but _X86_EFLAGS_IF seems to be the current practice.

Cheers,
Rusty.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/