[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C712207589C8CB@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:02:53 +0000
From: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Kammela, Gayatri" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
"Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/cpufeatures: Enable new SSE/AVX/AVX512 cpu
features
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 06:20:29PM -0700, Gayatri Kammela wrote:
> > #define X86_FEATURE_AVX512VBMI (16*32+ 1) /* AVX512 Vector Bit
> Manipulation instructions*/
>
> So we have previous AVX512 feature bits which do not separate AVX512
> with a "_" but the new ones do. I think we should unify this and the SDM
> should be fixed too.
This patch exactly follows the names in the spec.
As you said, the legacy code doesn't follow spec naming strictly and the spec doesn't have uniform naming convention either. We are contacting spec author to see if we can follow the same naming convention in the future specs.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
Powered by blists - more mailing lists