From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D41C04E53 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 08:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA9BA20675 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 08:05:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EA9BA20675 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQouW-0007pL-VG for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 04:05:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQotX-0007TJ-75 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 04:04:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQotW-0003b8-3e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 04:04:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33572) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQotO-0003Hi-IF; Wed, 15 May 2019 04:04:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91FC3307E04E; Wed, 15 May 2019 08:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kinshicho (unknown [10.43.2.73]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2FBA19C69; Wed, 15 May 2019 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: From: Andrea Bolognani To: Richard Henderson , Andrew Jones Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:03:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1cd94ba6-2bfa-645e-1034-dd05e8a77000@linaro.org> References: <20190512083624.8916-1-drjones@redhat.com> <9f57bfa56715b3128c1823150457ddb866e6054c.camel@redhat.com> <20190513123656.6iu7ebu7zucn5mxt@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <20190514125329.mi7ctaoujirwm6gs@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <1857a74ef586a4e41d93b184498cfcf6c2927cec.camel@redhat.com> <1cd94ba6-2bfa-645e-1034-dd05e8a77000@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.2 (3.32.2-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Wed, 15 May 2019 08:04:01 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/13] target/arm/kvm: enable SVE in guests X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, alex.bennee@linaro.org, Dave.Martin@arm.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 13:14 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 5/14/19 9:03 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 14:53 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > We already have sve-max-vq, so I'm not sure we want to rename it. > > > > Oh, I didn't realize that was the case. And of course it already > > takes a number of quadwords as argument, I suppose? That's pretty > > unfortunate :( > > > > Perhaps we could consider deprecating it in favor of a user-friendly > > variant that's actually suitable for regular humans, like the one I > > suggest above? > > Why is =4 less user-friendly than =512? > > I don't actually see "total bits in vector" as more user-friendly than "number > of quadwords" when it comes to non-powers-of-2 like =7 vs =896 or =13 vs =1664. I would wager most people are intimately familiar with bits, bytes and multiples due to having to work with them daily. Quadwords, not so much. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization