[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220331100139.GG23422@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:01:39 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wefu@...hat.com,
liush@...winnertech.com, guoren@...nel.org, atishp@...shpatra.org,
anup@...infault.org, drew@...gleboard.org, hch@....de,
arnd@...db.de, wens@...e.org, maxime@...no.tech,
gfavor@...tanamicro.com, andrea.mondelli@...wei.com,
behrensj@....edu, xinhaoqu@...wei.com, mick@....forth.gr,
allen.baum@...erantotech.com, jscheid@...tanamicro.com,
rtrauben@...il.com, samuel@...lland.org, cmuellner@...ux.com,
philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/14] riscv: add cpufeature handling via
alternatives
Can you please fold the somewhat confusingly named vendor patching
into this instead of keeping that magic standalone function pointer
mess?
> +static const struct cpufeature_info __initdata_or_module cpufeature_list[CPUFEATURE_NUMBER] = {
> +};
Overly lone line.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists