[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201207171251.GB16640@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:12:51 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
x86@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
jing2.liu@...el.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/22] x86/fpu/xstate: Modify area init helper
prototypes to access all the possible areas
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:32:36PM -0800, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> The xstate infrastructure is not flexible to support dynamic areas in
> task->fpu.
task->fpu?
Do you mean the fpu member in struct thread_struct ?
> Change the fpstate_init() prototype to access task->fpu directly. It
> treats a null pointer as indicating init_fpstate, as this initial data
> does not belong to any task.
What for? Commit messages should state *why* you're doing a change - not
*what* you're doing. *What* I can more or less see, *why* is harder.
/me goes and looks forward into the patchset...
Are you going to need it for stuff like
fpu ? fpu->state_mask : get_init_fpstate_mask()
?
If so, why don't you write *why* you're doing those changes here?
> For the compacted format, fpstate_init_xstate() now accepts the state
> component bitmap to configure XCOMP_BV.
I can see that. But why?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists