On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 12:54 +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > Le 09/06/2019 à 09:33, Michał Górny a écrit : > > On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 09:20 +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > > > In fact, the whole loop seems wrong: CPUID uses the XCR0_ constants, not the > > > XSAVE_ constants. Eg HDC is 13 in XCR0_ but 10 in XSAVE_, so you never iterate > > > over it. > > > > It's intentional. I only iterate up to XSAVE_MAX_COMPONENT, > > i.e. the last component actually used by the kernel. I don't skip > > earlier unused components to avoid index madness but I see no purpose to > > go beyond last component actually used. > > Ok, that's fine for now and we can revisit that later for future states. > However, maybe rename XSAVE_ -> XCRO_SHIFT_, or something else, to make it > clear that this depends on the hardware layout. It is meant to be 'XSAVE component index', to be precise. As passed e.g. to CPUID as ECX. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part