On 6/23/21 4:32 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 08:40:00AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx> >> > > Ok, so I took a critical look at this and it doesn't make sense to have > a differently named define each time you need the [63:12] slice of > GHCBData. So you can simply use GHCB_DATA(msr_value) instead, see below. > > Complaints? None from me. Thanks, Tom
