* Yury Norov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:01:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Yury Norov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT is defined twice to the same valie in > > > arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h. Fix it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h | 5 ++--- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h > > > b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h > > > index 0d5c739eebd7..9bfac5c80d89 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_32_types.h > > > @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ > > > #define MCE_STACK 0 > > > #define N_EXCEPTION_STACKS 1 > > > > > > +#define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > > + > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE > > > /* > > > * This is beyond the 44 bit limit imposed by the 32bit long pfns, > > > @@ -36,11 +38,8 @@ > > > * The real limit is still 44 bits. > > > */ > > > #define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 52 > > > -#define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > > - > > > #else /* !CONFIG_X86_PAE */ > > > #define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > > -#define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > > #endif /* CONFIG_X86_PAE */ > > > > I think it's clearer to see them defined where the physical mask shift is > > defined. > > > > How about the patch below? It does away with the weird formatting and > > cleans up both the comments and the style of the definition: > > > > /* > > * 52 bits on PAE is beyond the 44-bit limit imposed by the > > * 32-bit long PFNs, but we need the full mask to make sure > > * inverted PROT_NONE entries have all the host bits set > > * in a guest. The real limit is still 44 bits. > > */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE > > # define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 52 > > # define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > #else > > # define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > # define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 > > #endif > > > > ? > > My main concern was about double definition. It pretty looks like a > bug. But if it's intentional, I'm OK. In the patch below, could you > please add some note to the comment that __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT defined > twice intentionally? It's not defined "twice", it has values set in the PAE and the non-PAE branch - just like __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT. __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT happens to have the same value in both branches, but that's OK and pretty standard and happens in other headers too. Thanks, Ingo
