lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] x86: Adding structs to reflect cpuid fields
2014-09-18 09:19+0200, Borislav Petkov:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 02:29:54AM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > I think you proposed to use magic constant in place of of MASK_FAM_X, so
>
> Huh, what?

Your example. It cannot be verbatim MASK_FAM_X in real code.

I interpreted it to be a placeholder for 0x1ffff (first 17 bits) and
said why I think it is not a good thing.
The other interpretation (well named macro) was against your goal.

> > Second problem: Most elements don't begin at offset 0, so the usual
> > retrieval would add a shift, (repurposing max_monitor_line_size)
>
> So what?

Your goal was easy parsing (last sentence of the mail).

My argument is that bitfields are easier to read. (With examples.)

> > max_monitor_line_size = (cpuid & MASK_FAM_X) >> OFFSET_FAM_X;
> >
> > and it's not better when we write it back after doing stuff.
>
> Writing back CPUID on baremetal? You can't be serious.

We are not talking just about baremetal, see patch [3/3].

There are, and will be new, use cases for modifying and storing cpuid.

> Ok, this is getting ridiculous so I'll stop wasting time. I stand by my
> initial statement - this is a bad idea.

Acknowledged.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-18 12:41    [W:0.263 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site