On 04.05.2023 21:39, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The latter is more legible, and consistent with X86_NR_{SYNTH,BUG} which
> already exist.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
I can live with this as-is, so
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
yet ...
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@ -53,4 +53,4 @@ XEN_CPUFEATURE(IBPB_ENTRY_HVM, X86_SYNTH(29)) /*
> MSR_PRED_CMD used by Xen for
> #define X86_BUG_IBPB_NO_RET X86_BUG( 3) /* IBPB doesn't flush the
> RSB/RAS */
>
> /* Total number of capability words, inc synth and bug words. */
> -#define NCAPINTS (FSCAPINTS + X86_NR_SYNTH + X86_NR_BUG) /* N 32-bit words
> worth of info */
> +#define X86_NR_CAPS (FSCAPINTS + X86_NR_SYNTH + X86_NR_BUG) /* N 32-bit
> words worth of info */
... the way the value is computed suggests to me that "CAPS" (i.e.
"capabilities") isn't quite the right term. "features" sadly isn't, either
(or else I'd have suggested that without hesitating), as neither of the
two really fits the inclusion of "bugs", but feels - to me as a non-native
English speaker - still slightly better.
Then again "CAPS" fits x86_capability[] best ...
Jan
