Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros

[Ingo Molnar]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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