lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 03/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce XSAVES system states
From
Date
On 10/17/18 3:41 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

>> @@ -702,6 +703,7 @@ static int init_xstate_size(void)
>> */
>> static void fpu__init_disable_system_xstate(void)
>> {
>> + xfeatures_mask_all = 0;
>> xfeatures_mask_user = 0;
>> cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_OSXSAVE);
>> fpu__xstate_clear_all_cpu_caps();
>> @@ -717,6 +719,8 @@ void __init fpu__init_system_xstate(void)
>> static int on_boot_cpu __initdata = 1;
>> int err;
>> int i;
>> + u64 cpu_user_xfeatures_mask;
>> + u64 cpu_system_xfeatures_mask;
>
> Please sort function local variables declaration in a reverse christmas
> tree order:
>
> <type> longest_variable_name;
> <type> shorter_var_name;
> <type> even_shorter;
> <type> i;

Hi,

Would you mind explaining this request? (requirement?)
Other than to say that it is the preference of some maintainers,
please say Why it is preferred.

and since the <type>s above won't typically be the same length,
it's not for variable name alignment, right?

thanks,
--
~Randy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-18 00:40    [W:0.140 / U:1.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site