[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32da559b-7958-60db-e328-f0eb316e668e@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:39:47 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce XSAVES system states
On 10/17/18 3:41 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> @@ -702,6 +703,7 @@ static int init_xstate_size(void)
>> */
>> static void fpu__init_disable_system_xstate(void)
>> {
>> + xfeatures_mask_all = 0;
>> xfeatures_mask_user = 0;
>> cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_OSXSAVE);
>> fpu__xstate_clear_all_cpu_caps();
>> @@ -717,6 +719,8 @@ void __init fpu__init_system_xstate(void)
>> static int on_boot_cpu __initdata = 1;
>> int err;
>> int i;
>> + u64 cpu_user_xfeatures_mask;
>> + u64 cpu_system_xfeatures_mask;
>
> Please sort function local variables declaration in a reverse christmas
> tree order:
>
> <type> longest_variable_name;
> <type> shorter_var_name;
> <type> even_shorter;
> <type> i;
Hi,
Would you mind explaining this request? (requirement?)
Other than to say that it is the preference of some maintainers,
please say Why it is preferred.
and since the <type>s above won't typically be the same length,
it's not for variable name alignment, right?
thanks,
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists