From: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
To: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>,
"'xen-devel@lists.xensource.com'" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 1/5: clean up the FPU code
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:20:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C9CDCC5D.2CB27%keir@xen.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DA75B22.1010702@amd.com>
On 14/04/2011 21:37, "Wei Huang" <wei.huang2@amd.com> wrote:
> This patch reorganizes and cleans up the FPU code. Main changes include:
>
> 1. Related functions are re-arranged together.
> 2. FPU save/restore code are extracted out as independent functions
> (fsave/frstor, fxsave/fxrstor, xsave/xrstor).
> 3. Two FPU entry functions, fpu_save() and fpu_restore(), are defined.
> They utilize xsave/xrstor to save/restore FPU state if CPU supports
> extended state. Otherwise they fall back to fxsave/fxrstor or fsave/frstor.
Wei,
If you're going to clean this up, please don't politely skirt around the
existing file- and function-name conventions. The fact is that i387/fpu is
but one item of state handled by XSAVE/XRSTOR and friends. Thus it is the
tail wagging the dog to keep all the new mechanism in files and functions
called {i387,fpu}*. I'd prefer you to move some or all functionality into
newly-named files and functions -- perhaps using a prefix like xstate_ on
functions and sticking it all in files xstate.[ch]. Perhaps the old i387
files would disappear completely, or perhaps you'll find a few bits and
pieces logically remain in them, I don't mind either way as long as
everything is in a logical place with a logical name.
The naming in your 3rd patch is also unnecessarily confusing: is it really
clear the difference between *_reload and *_restore, for example, that one
is done on context switch and the other on #NM? We need better names; for
example:
xstate_save: Straightforward I guess as we always unlazily save everything
that's dirty straight away during context switch.
xstate_restore_lazy: Handle stuff we restore lazily on #NM.
xstate_restore_eager: Handle stuff we restore unconditionally (if in use by
the guest) on ctxt switch.
These names would mean a lot more to me than what you chose. However, feel
free to work out a comprehensive naming scheme that you think works best.
All I'm saying is that our current naming scheme is already pretty crappy,
and you make it quite a bit worse by following the existing direction way
too much!
-- Keir
> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-15 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-14 20:37 [PATCH][RFC] FPU LWP 1/5: clean up the FPU code Wei Huang
2011-04-15 9:20 ` Keir Fraser [this message]
2011-04-15 16:22 ` Huang2, Wei
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=C9CDCC5D.2CB27%keir@xen.org \
--to=keir@xen.org \
--cc=wei.huang2@amd.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).