lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros

* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>
> Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() anyway. Kill
> the least used and unused ones.

So cpufeature.h doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the difference is
between all these variants:

cpu_has()
static_cpu_has()
static_cpu_has_safe()

it has this comment:

/*
* Static testing of CPU features. Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
* These are only valid after alternatives have run, but will statically
* patch the target code for additional performance.
*/

The second sentence does not parse. Why does the third sentence have a 'but' for
listing properties? It's either bad grammer or tries to tell something that isn't
being told properly.

It's entirely silent on the difference between static_cpu_has() and
static_cpu_has_safe() - what makes the second one 'safe'?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-10 14:01    [W:0.129 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site