> From: Huang, Kai [mailto:kai.hu...@linux.intel.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:16 AM > > > >>> #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_LOCK 0x0001 > >>> #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_VMXON_INSIDE_SMX 0x0002 > >>> #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_VMXON_OUTSIDE_SMX 0x0004 > >>> #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_SENTER_PARAM_CTL 0x7f00 > >>> #define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_ENABLE_SENTER 0x8000 > >>> +#define IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR_SGX_ENABLE 0x40000 > >> > >> suppose above macros better be changed in same style? Or is it > >> really meaningful to keep whole MSR name in every bit definition? > >> Is it clearly enough to just keep strings after _MSR_? > > > > I partly agree. The _MSR_ infix is clearly pointless. I wouldn't, > > however, like to see the IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_ prefix > > dropped, as it helps associating the bits with their MSR. > > Sure. I think we can have consensus on just removing the _MSR_ infix, so > the bit macros will be like IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_LOCK, > IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL_SGX_ENABLE, etc? >
yes, sounds good to me. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
