Re: [PATCH v2 04/15] x86: implement data structure and CPU init flow for MBA

[Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>]

On 17-08-29 07:58:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.08.17 at 15:44, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 09:14:38AM +0800, Yi Sun wrote:
> >> @@ -80,9 +86,23 @@ enum psr_feat_type {
> >>   *               cos_reg_val[1] (Code).
> >>   */
> >>  struct feat_node {
> >> -    /* cos_max and cbm_len are common values for all features so far. */
> >> +    /* cos_max is common values for all features so far. */
> >>      unsigned int cos_max;
> >> -    unsigned int cbm_len;
> >> +
> >> +    /* Feature specific HW info. */
> >> +    union {
> >> +        struct {
> >> +            /* The length of CBM got through CPUID. */
> >> +            unsigned int cbm_len;
> >> +        } cat_info;
> >> +
> >> +        struct {
> >> +            /* The max throttling value got through CPUID. */
> >> +            unsigned int thrtl_max;
> >> +            unsigned int linear;
> > 
> > This seems like it wants to be a boolean?
> > 
> >> +        } mba_info;
> > 
> > Just naming the fields 'cat' and 'mba' would probably be enough IMHO,
> > but that's just taste I think, and I won't argue if you prefer to
> > leave them with the _info suffix.
> 
> It's not just a matter of taste - longer names are longer to type
> and parse, so if a shorter name can be used unambiguously, it
> always should be imo.
> 
Thanks! Will notice this rule in the future.

> Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel