On 27/06/18 15:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.06.18 at 15:55, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -316,6 +319,33 @@ static void __init calculate_raw_policy(void)
>> cpuid_count_leaf(7, i, &p->feat.raw[i]);
>> }
>>
>> + if ( p->basic.max_leaf >= 0xb )
>> + {
>> + union {
>> + struct cpuid_leaf l;
>> + struct cpuid_topo_leaf t;
>> + } u;
>> +
>> + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->topo.raw); ++i )
>> + {
>> + cpuid_count_leaf(0xb, i, &u.l);
>> +
>> + if ( u.t.type == 0 )
>> + break;
>> +
>> + p->topo.subleaf[i] = u.t;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The choice of CPUID_GUEST_NR_TOPO is per the manual. It may need
>> + * to grow for future harware.
> Missing d.
Where? I'm afraid that after repeated re-reads, I can't spot any issue.
>
>> @@ -108,7 +109,11 @@ struct cpuid_policy
>> uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x9 - DCA */
>>
>> /* Leaf 0xa - Intel PMU. */
>> - uint8_t pmu_version;
>> + uint8_t pmu_version, _pmu[15];
>> +
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0xb - Topology. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0xc - rsvd */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0xd - XSTATE. */
> I don't understand why you add the latter two lines, neither in general
> nor in the particular context of this patch.
This is part of reducing the effort for people extending the CPUID
leaves, by keeping the .basic union in line with max_leaf.
There are further non-subleaf leaves beyond this point (0x15/0x16) and
I've noticed several mistakes with newer submitted series. I'd much
rather do this myself once now, than attempt to explain it to others
during code review.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
