lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86/resctrl: Re-arrange RFTYPE flags and add more comments
    From
    Hi Babu,

    On 5/5/2023 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
    > Hi Reinette,
    >
    > On 5/4/2023 2:00 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
    >> Hi Babu,
    >>
    >> On 4/17/2023 4:34 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
    >>> Remove gaps in bit definitions of RFTYPE flags and add more comments
    >> Why is it necessary to remove gaps in the bit definitions?
    >
    > Removing the gaps is not necessary definitely. I thought adding
    > comments will help adding new flags in the future.
    >

    I agree that removing the gaps are not necessary.

    > If you want me to drop this whole patch, I am fine with it.>

    The comments may be useful. If you decide to keep it please review
    it for consistency. The comments should not increase confusion.
    For example,
    * in one instance you refer to "info" and "base" as components, in
    another you refer to them as directories, which is confusing since
    there is a "info" directory but no "base" directory.
    * related to previous item, the comments start by referring to the
    "info" and "base" components but then the comments switch to
    describing a "info directory structure and "group structure"
    * the separator (---) is used above a header in one instance and
    below a header in another
    * in some places you use the syntax:
    --> <flag name> (<dir name>, <dir name>)
    in other places you use:
    --> <flag name>
    --> (<dir name>)
    --> (<dir name>)

    Reinette

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-05-05 23:25    [W:2.397 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site