linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Merge x86_32 and x86_64 cpu

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]

Message-ID: <20120324072519.GB20145@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:25:19 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Merge x86_32 and x86_64 cpu_idle()

* Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:

> Both functions are mostly identical, so we can merge them.

Okay, so while looking at the patch I got a bit worried about 
the 'mostly' qualifier ;-)

You could ease that worry by adding an explanation to the 
changelog that itemizes the differences, explains which 
architecture is affected by the changes in what way and gives us 
the warm fuzzy feeling that everything has been considered and 
no ill can come out of using a 'mostly' identical idling 
function in the future.

( You should also pick up Frederic's ack for the next
  submission of this patch. )

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/