On 17/10/2023 10:13 am, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 08:50:45AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 17/10/2023 8:44 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 13.10.2023 17:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> Fix adapted off Linux's mailing list: >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d99589f4-bc5d-430b-87b2-72c20370c...@exactcode.com/T/#u >>> Why reference the bug report when there's a proper commit (f454b18e07f5) >>> now? >>> Plus in any event a short summary of the erratum would help if put right >>> here >>> (without needing to look up any documents or follow any links). >> That is not public information yet. The erratum number alone is the >> best we can do at this juncture. >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c >>>> @@ -1004,6 +1004,28 @@ static void cf_check zen2_disable_c6(void *arg) >>>> wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_CSTATE_CFG, val & mask); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static void amd_check_erratum_1485(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + uint64_t val, chickenbit = (1 << 5); >>> Linux gives the bit a name. Any reason you don't? >> There are multiple different names depending on where you look, and none >> are particularly relevant here. > Could we make chickenbit const static?
Why would we want to force something that's optimised to an instruction immediate into a .data variable? ~Andrew
