[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53A1A3A5.9010109@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:35:17 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] x86, mpx: add macro cpu_has_mpx
On 06/18/2014 02:57 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > @@ -339,6 +339,12 @@ extern const char * const x86_power_flags[32];
>> > #define cpu_has_eager_fpu boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_EAGER_FPU)
>> > #define cpu_has_topoext boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT)
>> >
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MPX
>> > +#define cpu_has_mpx boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MPX)
> I think we don't want those macros anymore because they're obfuscating
> the code. You should use static_cpu_has instead.
It looks like static_cpu_has() is the right thing to use instead of
boot_cpu_has(). But, this doesn't just obfuscate things.
We actually _want_ the compiler to cull code out when the config option
is off. Things like do_bounds() will see code savings with _some_ kind
of #ifdef rather than using static_cpu_has().
So, we can either use the well worn, consistent with other features in
x86, cpu_has_$foo approach. Or, we can roll our own macros.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists