| Date | Tue, 5 May 2015 20:16:13 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 084/208] x86/fpu: Rename xsave.header::xstate_bv to 'xfeatures' |
| |
* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 10:49 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > 'xsave.header::xstate_bv' is a misnomer - what does 'bv' stand for? > > xstate_bv is what it is called in the SDM. [...]
So I'm not attached to the ::xfeatures name (we could name it xstate_mask, etc.) - but xstate_bv? It's really nonsensical IMHO - and I wanted it to be more obvious.
We could put the SDM name into a comment, next to the field definition? Something like, if 'xfeatures' is too long:
struct xstate_header { u64 xfeat; /* xstate components, SDM: XSTATE_BV */ u64 xfeat_comp; /* compacted xstate components, SDM: XCOMP_BV */ u64 reserved[6]; } __attribute__((packed));
or so? Then if you grep for 'XSTATE_BV', you'll immediately see that it's called xfeat_comp.
> [...] I'd really like to see the nomenclature match the SDM where > it's sensible because it says lots of things like: > > XSAVES does not write to any parts of the XSAVE header other > than the XSTATE_BV and XCOMP_BV fields. > > It's nice to have code that does: > > ...->xstate_bv > > to match up with that documentation IMNHO.
Where the SDM uses sensible names I'm all for that - but IMHO this is not such a case.
Thanks,
Ingo
|