Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:22:50 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/cpufeature: Add CLZERO feature |
| |
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:12:59AM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: > For large part yes, wrapped code in patch form with commit message etc. > And modified comment a little bit. > > Does that still require his address in "From"?
Yes, because it sounds like he was the author of the original patch. Btw, you should read
Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and sections 11 - "Sign your work" up until 14, in particular. That should clear things up for ya.
> Haha. True. But looks like that's actually it's name.
No one said hw people can name stuff properly.
> If tautologies are not your thing,
My thing is catching sloppiness in patches.
> how about changing comments around > 0x80000001,ecx to say "AMD extended features 1" and > for 0x80000008, ebx say "AMD extended features 2"?
No, I think you should add that bit to init_scattered_cpuid_features() instead.
And btw, those Intel QoS single bit defines and the XSAVE stuff there should move to that function too - that's a pure waste having them in the cap_flags array. I'll fix that.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --
| |