[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5e0b2ded-da79-4c86-b9eb-d11106f6ed65@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 07:03:31 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sohil.mehta@...el.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/cpu: Break Vendor/Family/Model macros into
separate header
On 1/20/26 00:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> +#define VFM_MODEL_MASK GENMASK(VFM_FAMILY_BIT - 1, VFM_MODEL_BIT)
>> +#define VFM_FAMILY_MASK GENMASK(VFM_VENDOR_BIT - 1, VFM_FAMILY_BIT)
>> +#define VFM_VENDOR_MASK GENMASK(VFM_RSVD_BIT - 1, VFM_VENDOR_BIT)
> There are tabs after #define, is it on purpose?
> (yes, I know this is simple move, but if not deliberate, we can tweak
> the tabs/spaces while at it)
Yes, you can, but I chose not to here. Is there any compelling reason to
tweak it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists