All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:30:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151110123000.GA20227@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1447156122-9379-4-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> 
> Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() anyway. Kill
> the least used and unused ones.

So cpufeature.h doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the difference is 
between all these variants:

	cpu_has()
	static_cpu_has()
	static_cpu_has_safe()

it has this comment:

/*
 * Static testing of CPU features.  Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
 * These are only valid after alternatives have run, but will statically
 * patch the target code for additional performance.
 */

The second sentence does not parse. Why does the third sentence have a 'but' for 
listing properties? It's either bad grammer or tries to tell something that isn't 
being told properly.

It's entirely silent on the difference between static_cpu_has() and 
static_cpu_has_safe() - what makes the second one 'safe'?

Thanks,

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-11-10 12:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-10 11:48 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/cpufeature: Cleanup stuff Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86/cpufeature: Move some of the scattered feature bits to x86_capability Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeature: Cleanup get_cpu_cap() Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros Borislav Petkov
2015-11-10 11:57   ` David Sterba
2015-11-10 12:30   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-11-10 12:37     ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-18 18:23     ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-24 13:05   ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-24 22:42     ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-25  0:10       ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-11-25  2:58         ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-27 13:52       ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-27 18:04         ` Borislav Petkov
2015-11-27 20:13           ` Josh Triplett
2015-11-27 20:23             ` Borislav Petkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151110123000.GA20227@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.