On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 06:42:55PM +0530, Balasubrmanian, Vignesh wrote:
> > > +enum custom_feature {
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_FP = 0,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_SSE = 1,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_YMM = 2,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDREGS = 3,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_BNDCSR = 4,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_OPMASK = 5,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_ZMM_Hi256 = 6,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_Hi16_ZMM = 7,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_PT = 8,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_PKRU = 9,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_PASID = 10,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_USER = 11,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_CET_SHADOW_STACK = 12,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_HDC = 13,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_UINTR = 14,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_LBR = 15,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_HWP = 16,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_CFG = 17,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_DATA = 18,
> > > + FEATURE_MAX,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_EXTENDED_START = FEATURE_XSAVE_YMM,
> > > + FEATURE_XSAVE_EXTENDED_END = FEATURE_XSAVE_XTILE_DATA,
> > > +};
> > Why can't this use the existing 'enum xfeature' which is providing
> > exactly the same information already?
> First version of patch was similar to what you mentioned here and other
> review comments to use existing kernel definitions.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240314112359.50713-1-vigbalas@xxxxxxx/T/
>
> As per the review comment https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240314162954.GAZfMmAnYQoRjRbRzc@fat_crate.local/
> , modified the patch to be a independent of kernel internal definitions.
> Though this enum and below function "get_sub_leaf" are not useful now, it
> will be required when we extend for a new/different features.
No, Thomas' sugggestion is to use the existing xfeature enum - not
define the same thing again.
Why do you need that enum custom_feature thing if you can use
/*
* List of XSAVE features Linux knows about:
*/
enum xfeature {
from arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/types.h
?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
