[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01d50e80-7d58-6dc8-73d4-bd8ad1d1bec0@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:19:10 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
peterz@...radead.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/33] x86/cpu: add X86_CR4_FRED macro
On 6/5/23 05:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10 2023 at 01:14, Xin Li wrote:
>
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@...or.com>
>>
>> Add X86_CR4_FRED macro for the FRED bit in %cr4. This bit should be a
>
> s/should/must/ no?
>
>> +/*
>> + * These bits should not change their value after CPU init is finished.
>> + * The explicit cast to unsigned long suppresses a warning on i386 for
>> + * x86-64 only feature bits >= 32.
>> + */
>> static const unsigned long cr4_pinned_mask =
>> - X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_UMIP |
>> - X86_CR4_FSGSBASE | X86_CR4_CET;
>> + (unsigned long)
>
> That type cast is required because:
>
> +#define X86_CR4_FRED _BITULL(X86_CR4_FRED_BIT)
>
> Bah. Fred is 64 bit only. So why defining this as 1ULL << 32
> unconditionally and stripping the bit off on 32bit via the type cast?
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> #define X86_CR4_FRED _BITUL(X86_CR4_FRED_BIT)
> #else
> #define X86_CR4_FRED 0
> #endif
>
> would be too obvious, right?
>
It also adds an #ifdef mess to avoid a simple typecast. Is that the
right tradeoff?
I'm not saying it is or it isn't, it is an open question.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists