On 07.07.2023 00:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.07.2023 17:26, Simone Ballarin wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h >>> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ void vmx_vmcs_reload(struct vcpu *v); >>> #define CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_MSR_BITMAP 0x10000000 >>> #define CPU_BASED_MONITOR_EXITING 0x20000000 >>> #define CPU_BASED_PAUSE_EXITING 0x40000000 >>> -#define CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS 0x80000000 >>> +#define CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS 0x80000000U >> >> Interesting - you don't change adjacent #define-s here, nor ... >> >>> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ extern u32 vmx_vmentry_control; >>> #define SECONDARY_EXEC_XSAVES 0x00100000 >>> #define SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING 0x02000000 >>> #define SECONDARY_EXEC_BUS_LOCK_DETECTION 0x40000000 >>> -#define SECONDARY_EXEC_NOTIFY_VM_EXITING 0x80000000 >>> +#define SECONDARY_EXEC_NOTIFY_VM_EXITING 0x80000000U >> >> ... here. May I ask why that is? (I'm not opposed, but the >> description suggests otherwise.) > > Like I wrote in the other email, the requirement is only to add U where > the top bit is set (0x80000000). Adding U to the other constant is > optional and for us to decide.
Right, but as said then the description shouldn't suggest things are being done consistently everywhere. (Likely this is going to become easy when splitting by maintainership area, by then simply omitting the respective sentence from the description.) Jan
