[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACbG30_1BwWx3kq+V5TS6Rr+_UC08aYVRJARhBdayn6KFhBcBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:57:52 -0500
From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/18] x86/intel_rdt: Feature discovery
On 8 October 2016 at 14:52, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 01:54:54PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>> > I think these #defines are specific to Intel. I would prefer if we
>> > have _INTEL_ somewhere in them.
>
> We don't generally add vendor names to those defines. Even more so if
> the 0x0... leaf range is Intel-specific anyway.
>
>> Is adding "Intel" in comment good?
>
> I don't see any need if the leaf has already this heading:
>
> /* Intel-defined CPU features, CPUID level 0x00000007:0 (ebx), word 9 */
>
I think we should go with Fenghua' suggestion on this. Reading the
code around the edits from this patch, it seems word 7 is not owned by
anyone. Both AMD and Intel seem to be using it.
--
Nilay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists