[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e45b8bac-8df8-acf3-aa48-f8a51594ca13@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:06:16 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
peterz@...radead.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/33] x86/cpu: add X86_CR4_FRED macro
On 6/5/23 05:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10 2023 at 01:14, Xin Li wrote:
>
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@...or.com>
>>
>> Add X86_CR4_FRED macro for the FRED bit in %cr4. This bit should be a
>
> s/should/must/ no?
>
Technically no bit "must" be set in the fixed bit variable, but it would
obviously be insane not to. But it makes it a "should", both in
dictionary and RFC 2119 definitions.
Incidentally, I strongly advice everyone to use the RFC 2119 definitions
of technical requirement terms when possible.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists