> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
> index 10b1de500ab1..107f9d947e8d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> * bit 4 == 1: fault was an instruction fetch
> * bit 5 == 1: protection keys block access
> * bit 15 == 1: SGX MMU page-fault
> + * bit 31 == 1: fault was an RMP violation
> */
> enum x86_pf_error_code {
> X86_PF_PROT = 1 << 0,
> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ enum x86_pf_error_code {
> X86_PF_INSTR = 1 << 4,
> X86_PF_PK = 1 << 5,
> X86_PF_SGX = 1 << 15,
> + X86_PF_RMP = 1ull << 31,
> };
Man, I hope AMD and Intel are talking to each other about these bits. :)
Either way, this is hitting the limits of what I know about how enums
are implemented. I had internalized that they are just an 'int', but
that doesn't seem quite right. It sounds like they must be implemented
using *an* integer type, but not necessarily 'int' itself.
Either way, '1<<31' doesn't fit in a 32-bit signed int. But, gcc at
least doesn't seem to blow the enum up into a 64-bit type, which is nice.
Could we at least start declaring these with BIT()?
