[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mw73dy5rhbbdcknxjhupsgmp3wdkedtlstwaqxonjzl6z627f7@bxxop3txiom5>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 09:19:38 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
ojeda@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] x86/kvm/emulate: Introduce COP1
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 01:07:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
> @@ -267,11 +267,56 @@ static void invalidate_registers(struct
> X86_EFLAGS_PF|X86_EFLAGS_CF)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> -#define ON64(x) x
> +#define ON64(x...) x
> #else
> #define ON64(x)
Doesn't the 32-bit version need to be
#define ON64(x...)
since it now accepts multiple "args"?
> -FASTOP1(not);
> -FASTOP1(neg);
> -FASTOP1(inc);
> -FASTOP1(dec);
> +COP1(not);
> +COP1(neg);
> +COP1(inc);
> +COP1(dec);
I assume COP stands for "C op", but that will never be obvious.
s/COP/EMULATE/?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists