[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210203112340.GA11823@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:23:40 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, len.brown@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: Use consistent test for X86_FEATURE_XSAVES
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 06:40:52PM -0800, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> When XSAVES is present, the kernel always takes advantage of it, and XSAVES
> always uses compacted format.
>
> The macro using_compacted_format() implies that using compacted format may
Not a macro.
> be possible without XSAVES (say by using XSAVEC), but that is not possible
> here, so delete that confusing macro and simply test for what we want to
> know in the first place -- if we have XSAVES or not.
Who's "we"?
> @@ -500,20 +500,6 @@ int xfeature_size(int xfeature_nr)
> return eax;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * 'XSAVES' implies two different things:
> - * 1. saving of supervisor/system state
> - * 2. using the compacted format
> - *
> - * Use this function when dealing with the compacted format so
> - * that it is obvious which aspect of 'XSAVES' is being handled
> - * by the calling code.
@dhansen, are you still hung up on that "obvious aspect" or can we kill
this?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists