On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 10:36 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> This patch is based on Rusty's recent cleanup of the EFLAGS-related
> macros; it extends the same kind of cleanup to control registers and
> MSRs.
Thanks hpa, this looks nice.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the lin
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 10:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > Is having separate bit numbers and masks useful? If so, is it worth
> > doing for the others?
> >
>
> I presume it's useful, or at least *used* in the current code, since
> that was there already. If
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 19:36:44 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> This patch is based on Rusty's recent cleanup of the EFLAGS-related
> macros; it extends the same kind of cleanup to control registers and
> MSRs.
Applied. Although it was somewhat painful because there were other
changes in the tree you di
This patch is based on Rusty's recent cleanup of the EFLAGS-related
macros; it extends the same kind of cleanup to control registers and
MSRs.
It also unifies these between i386 and x86-64; at least with regards
to MSRs, the two had definitely gotten out of sync.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <[E
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Is having separate bit numbers and masks useful? If so, is it worth
doing for the others?
I presume it's useful, or at least *used* in the current code, since
that was there already. If deemed useful, it's something we could add
to the other bitmasks.
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> [PATCH] Clean up x86 control register and MSR macros
>
> This patch is based on Rusty's recent cleanup of the EFLAGS-related
> macros; it extends the same kind of cleanup to control registers and
> MSRs.
>
> It also unifies these between i386
6 matches
Mail list logo