On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:53:39PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> AFAIK backward compatibility is usually maintained in x86. I did not
> see in Intel SDM anything that says "this CPUID field means something
> for CPU X and something else for CPU Y". Anyhow, it is not different
> than bitmasks in this respect.
You still don't get my point: what are you going to do when
min_monitor_line_size needs to be 17 bits all of a sudden?
Currently, you simply do an if-else check before using the respective
mask and with your defined structs, you need to keep two versions:
union cpuid5_ebx_before_family_X {
struct {
unsigned int max_monitor_line_size:16;
unsigned int reserved:16;
} split;
unsigned int full;
};
union cpuid5_ebx_after_family_X {
struct {
unsigned int max_monitor_line_size:17;
unsigned int reserved:15;
} split;
unsigned int full;
};
> I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
And I don't understand why you're "fixing" code which doesn't need
fixing in the first place.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
