Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:30:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |