On 13.12.2022 23:26, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > This allows eliminating most of the former. No functional change > intended.
"most" would be nice to accompany by what has to stay, and for what reason. Is this solely about MTRR_NUM_TYPES or more? > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mtrr.h > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mtrr.h > @@ -3,12 +3,6 @@ > > #include <xen/mm.h> > > -/* These are the region types. They match the architectural specification. */ > -#define MTRR_TYPE_UNCACHABLE 0 > -#define MTRR_TYPE_WRCOMB 1 > -#define MTRR_TYPE_WRTHROUGH 4 > -#define MTRR_TYPE_WRPROT 5 > -#define MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK 6 > #define MTRR_NUM_TYPES 7 May I suggest to use X86_MT_UCM here, matching the transformation you do ... > @@ -1426,12 +1426,12 @@ void ept_p2m_uninit(struct p2m_domain *p2m) > static const char *memory_type_to_str(unsigned int x) > { > static const char memory_types[8][3] = { > - [MTRR_TYPE_UNCACHABLE] = "UC", > - [MTRR_TYPE_WRCOMB] = "WC", > - [MTRR_TYPE_WRTHROUGH] = "WT", > - [MTRR_TYPE_WRPROT] = "WP", > - [MTRR_TYPE_WRBACK] = "WB", > - [MTRR_NUM_TYPES] = "??" > + [X86_MT_UC] = "UC", > + [X86_MT_WC] = "WC", > + [X86_MT_WT] = "WT", > + [X86_MT_WP] = "WP", > + [X86_MT_WB] = "WB", > + [X86_MT_UCM] = "??", ... here (and where I wonder whether MTRR_NUM_TYPES wouldn't better be kept). Jan