linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:17:59 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > bitfields are only problematic on portable code, which this isn't.
> 
> it's still crappy to read and a bad example for others.  

I personally think bitfield code is actually easier to read
than manual shift/mask etc.

Avoiding bitfields is just a rule of thumb for portability, but that one
does not apply here.

I would say Joern's recent comment on religion vs common sense
for CodingStyle applies very well here.

> And last time
> I heard about UV it also included an ia64 version, but that's been
> loooong ago.

bitfield rules should be 100% the same between x86 and ia64

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/