lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 03/10] x86, mpx: add macro cpu_has_mpx
On 06/19/2014 11:02 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 09:25 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> How about something like the attached patch?
>>
>> This lets us use static_cpu_has() for the checks, and allows us to
>> easily add new checks for other features that might be compile-time
>> disabled.
>
> Hmm... I would like something similar to required-features.h which
> reflect features which *cannot* be enabled or will always be ignored; we
> actually already have a handful of those

Could you elaborate a bit? I'll try and include them in the approach to
make sure it works broadly.

Is there a benefit to the required-features.h approach that's missing
from mine? I _believe_ all of the compiler optimization around
__builtin_constant_p() continues to work with the inline function
instead of the #defines and bitmasks. I think the inline function
approach is a bit easier to work with.

Could the required-features.h approach just be from a time before
__builtin_constant_p() worked well across inlines?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-19 21:21    [W:0.292 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site