From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752114AbcAWXft (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:35:49 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:47062 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751520AbcAWXfr (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:35:47 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:35:15 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        yu-cheng yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/fpu: Speed up lazy FPU restores slightly
Message-ID: <20160123233515.GF16329@pd.tnic>
References: <cover.1453510332.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <93f2a482fce2ac1815d324344d03ff26ceabe439.1453510332.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <20160123101415.GB16329@pd.tnic>
 <CALCETrV-SXxOdVmyzbknCZhT7Z6DDT+uPot_nbsV6OeCmLn6UA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV-SXxOdVmyzbknCZhT7Z6DDT+uPot_nbsV6OeCmLn6UA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 02:09:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Maybe this will be just cpu_has some day if my theory about the new
> improved static_cpu_has being shorter than boot_cpu_has pans out :)

Yeah, I have the static_cpu_has() simplification patchset v2 ready, will
send out tomorrow.

And yeah, as a next step, we probably should think about hiding
boot_cpu_has() and using solely static_cpu_has() everywhere instead.

The cpu_has() thing takes struct cpuinfo_x86 * and I'll bet a bunch of
money that a lot of the callsites could do static_cpu_has(), i.e., look
at boot CPU bits instead. That's for later, though.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.