[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240212150053.GEZcoypaBQPB1IcZGY@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:00:53 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v5 06/19] x86/cpu: Provide a sane leaf 0xb/0x1f parser
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:17:45PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Especially x2apic_shift is horrible and the comments of EBX are visually
> impaired while with the C++ comments x2apic_shift looks natural and the
> EBX comments are just open to the right and therefore simpler.
I'd say, put comments *above* the member versus on the side. We don't
like side comments, if you remember. :-)
And, for example, the commenting in arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/types.h is
not half as bad and works real nice for struct definitions, I'd say.
But if you want to make that into a rule to have C++, side comments for
struct members I guess I'll get accustomed to it eventually.
> If it's caught in early testing, this should be fixed, no?
Hope dies last. :)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists