On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 14:17 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/01/16 14:13, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 09:29 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 16.12.15 at 22:24, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/featureset.h
> > > > +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/featureset.h
> > > > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > /* Intel-defined CPU features, CPUID level 0x00000007:0.ebx, word
> > > > 5 */
> > > > #define X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE ( 5*32+ 0) /* {RD,WR}{FS,GS}BASE
> > > > instructions */
> > > > +#define X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST ( 5*32+ 1) /* TSC_ADJUST MSR
> > > > available */
> > > This would probably better go into patch 1.
> > Tools would then see this defined twice with only patch 1 applied, and
> > since the value is actually different I think the compiler will
> > complain.
> >
> > -#define X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST 1 /* Tsc thread offset */
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST ( 5*32+ 1) /* TSC_ADJUST MSR
> > available */
> >
> > The comment change seems to be a semantic one? Or was it wrong beofre?
>
> Changing patch 1 won't affect the compilation of libxc. Observe in the
> penultimate hunk that I also change the #include
Ah yes.
What about my comment on the comment changing?
>
> ~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
