Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:43:48 +0000 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86-64: more fixes and cleanup to AMD Fam10 MMCONF enabling |
| |
>>> On 08.11.10 at 17:13, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 11/05/2010 03:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> --- 2.6.37-rc1-x86_64-mmconf-fam10h.orig/arch/x86/kernel/mmconf-fam10h_64.c >> +++ 2.6.37-rc1-x86_64-mmconf-fam10h/arch/x86/kernel/mmconf-fam10h_64.c >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int __cpuinit cmp_range(const voi >> return start1 - start2; >> } >> >> -#define UNIT (1ULL << (5 + 3 + 12)) >> +#define UNIT (1ULL << FAM10H_MMIO_CONF_BASE_SHIFT) >> #define MASK (~(UNIT - 1)) >> #define SIZE (UNIT << 8) > > Could we avoid macros named UNIT, MASK, and SIZE at all? I realize > they're already in the code, but still...
I could understand if these were definition in a header, but why do you think we need to have unnecessarily long identifiers (e.g. by prefixing all of the defines here with FAM10H_MMIO_CONF_BASE_) in places like this? After all, one of the two goals of using a macro here at all is to keep things small and simple...
But sure, if just the names hinder acceptance, I can fold this and the original patches together and use less ambiguous names.
Jan
| |