On 04/05/2023 2:20 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.05.2023 15:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Nothing in x86/bitops uses anything from x86/cpufeatureset, and it is
>> creating
>> problems when trying to untangle other aspects of feature handling.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
>> CC: Wei Liu <w...@xen.org>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> index 5a71afbc89d5..aa8bd65b4565 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> @@ -6,7 +6,6 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <asm/alternative.h>
>> -#include <asm/cpufeatureset.h>
> Prior to your 44325775f724 ("x86/cpuid: Untangle the <asm/cpufeature.h>
> include hierachy") it was asm/cpufeature.h that was included here,
> presumably for the use of X86_FEATURE_BMI1 in __scanbit(). I guess that
> wants to be asm/cpufeatures.h now instead?
Oh. I missed that, but nothing fails to compile, which means that
there's a prior path including cpufeatureset anyway.
I think I'll drop this and leave the header rearranging to a later
point. I ended up having to do the untangling differently anyway.
~Andrew
