On 07.10.2021 10:02, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 07.10.2021 09:59, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.10.2021 12:58, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> Introduce flag XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_vpmu which >>> indicates whether the platform supports vPMU >>> functionality. Modify Xen and tools accordingly. >>> >>> Take the opportunity and fix XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_vmtrace >>> definition in sysctl.h which wrongly uses (1<<6) >>> instead of (1u<<6) and does not follow the standard >>> of using separate macro for a flag field. >> >> While adding the u suffix is fine with me, iirc not introducing >> _XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_vmtrace was a specific review request at the >> time. I would similarly ask to avoid introduction of >> _XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_vpmu here, for it not being consumed by >> anything other than XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_vpmu's definition. >> > Ok I did not know that. I thought we should stick to the previous standard. > Is this something that can be fixed on commit or should I send > a v3 only for that?
You may want to wait for further review feedback first, especially on the tools side. Considering adjustments to subsequent patches I would think re-sending will ultimately be better. Jan
