> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 09:53 > To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang > <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>; H. > Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jork > Loeser <Jork.Loeser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Simon Xiao <sixiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] x86/hyper-v: use hypercall for remote TLB flush > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > +#define HV_FLUSH_ALL_PROCESSORS 0x00000001 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_ALL_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACES 0x00000002 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_NON_GLOBAL_MAPPINGS_ONLY 0x00000004 > > +#define HV_FLUSH_USE_EXTENDED_RANGE_FORMAT 0x00000008 > > BIT() ? Certainly a matter of taste. Given that the Hyper-V spec lists these as hex numbers, I find the explicit numbers appropriate. Regards, Jork _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
