From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A307D082 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 22:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727304AbeJRG46 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 02:56:58 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:45438 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727259AbeJRG46 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 02:56:58 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: Nedap ESD1 at mail.skyhub.de Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (blast.alien8.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id LGZ4fKIA5EgQ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2BC91B00329C23FFFEA6A903.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2bc9:1b00:329c:23ff:fea6:a903]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 642781EC04DF; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:58:29 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Yu-cheng Yu , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Eugene Syromiatnikov , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Vedvyas Shanbhogue Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce XSAVES system states Message-ID: <20181017225829.GA32023@zn.tnic> References: <20181011151523.27101-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20181011151523.27101-4-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20181017104137.GE22535@zn.tnic> <32da559b-7958-60db-e328-f0eb316e668e@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32da559b-7958-60db-e328-f0eb316e668e@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 03:39:47PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Would you mind explaining this request? (requirement?) > Other than to say that it is the preference of some maintainers, > please say Why it is preferred. > > and since the s above won't typically be the same length, > it's not for variable name alignment, right? Searching the net a little, it shows you have asked that question before. So what is it you really wanna know? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.