> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevche...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 09:53 > To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> > Cc: x...@kernel.org; de...@linuxdriverproject.org; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; KY Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang > <haiya...@microsoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com>; > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>; Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com>; H. > Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com>; Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>; Jork > Loeser <jork.loe...@microsoft.com>; Simon Xiao <six...@microsoft.com>; > Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] x86/hyper-v: use hypercall for remote TLB flush > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > +#define HV_FLUSH_ALL_PROCESSORS 0x00000001 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_ALL_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACES 0x00000002 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_NON_GLOBAL_MAPPINGS_ONLY 0x00000004 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_USE_EXTENDED_RANGE_FORMAT 0x00000008 > > BIT() ?
Certainly a matter of taste. Given that the Hyper-V spec lists these as hex numbers, I find the explicit numbers appropriate. Regards, Jork
