Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86/resctrl: Re-arrange RFTYPE flags and add more comments

["Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@amd.com>]

Hi Reinette,

On 5/5/23 16:24, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 5/5/2023 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> On 5/4/2023 2:00 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Babu,
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2023 4:34 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>> Remove gaps in bit definitions of RFTYPE flags and add more comments
>>> Why is it necessary to remove gaps in the bit definitions?
>>
>> Removing the gaps is not necessary definitely. I thought adding
>> comments will help adding new flags in the future.
>>
> 
> I agree that removing the gaps are not necessary.
ok.

> 
>> If you want me to drop this whole patch, I am fine with it.> 
> 
> The comments may be useful. If you decide to keep it please review
> it for consistency. The comments should not increase confusion.
> For example,
> * in one instance you refer to "info" and "base" as components, in
>   another you refer to them as directories, which is confusing since
>   there is a "info" directory but no "base" directory.
> * related to previous item, the comments start by referring to the
>   "info" and "base" components but then the comments switch to
>   describing a "info directory structure and "group structure"
> * the separator (---) is used above a header in one instance and
>   below a header in another
> * in some places you use the syntax:
> 	--> <flag name> (<dir name>, <dir name>)
>   in other places you use:
> 	--> <flag name>
> 	   --> (<dir name>)
> 	   --> (<dir name>)
> 
>
sure. Will address this next revision.

Thanks
Babu