public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox