From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756111AbYCZFO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:14:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753018AbYCZFOr (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:14:47 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:44450 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752563AbYCZFOr (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:14:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:17:59 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andi Kleen , Jack Steiner , mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions Message-ID: <20080326051759.GD2170@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080324182116.GA28285@sgi.com> <20080325082756.GA6589@infradead.org> <87myoni0gp.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080326000820.GA18701@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080326000820.GA18701@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > bitfields are only problematic on portable code, which this isn't. > > it's still crappy to read and a bad example for others. I personally think bitfield code is actually easier to read than manual shift/mask etc. Avoiding bitfields is just a rule of thumb for portability, but that one does not apply here. I would say Joern's recent comment on religion vs common sense for CodingStyle applies very well here. > And last time > I heard about UV it also included an ia64 version, but that's been > loooong ago. bitfield rules should be 100% the same between x86 and ia64 -Andi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:17:59 +0100 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions Message-ID: <20080326051759.GD2170@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080324182116.GA28285@sgi.com> <20080325082756.GA6589@infradead.org> <87myoni0gp.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080326000820.GA18701@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080326000820.GA18701@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andi Kleen , Jack Steiner , mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > bitfields are only problematic on portable code, which this isn't. > > it's still crappy to read and a bad example for others. I personally think bitfield code is actually easier to read than manual shift/mask etc. Avoiding bitfields is just a rule of thumb for portability, but that one does not apply here. I would say Joern's recent comment on religion vs common sense for CodingStyle applies very well here. > And last time > I heard about UV it also included an ia64 version, but that's been > loooong ago. bitfield rules should be 100% the same between x86 and ia64 -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org