On January 10, 2017 1:04:15 AM PST, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:19:29PM -0800, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Any reason to not make these interfaces (leaf, subleaf) from the >start? > >Two, actually: > >1. I modelled them after the cpuid_<reg>(op) versions You are introducing a new API; makes more sense to do it right from the start. The only reason not to have a subleaf for the non-native variants is that they may decay into a function call so there is an extra cost. >2. I don't think we need the subleaf variant right now. But at some point we will. Just consider leaf 7. >But, when we do, we can do that when we cross that bridge and add > >native_cpuid_<reg>(leaf, subleaf) > >which gets called by the native_cpuid_<reg>(leaf) variants. C doesn't allow function name overloading ;) (Well, except the C11 type hacks; to the best of my knowledge that doesn't in any way support argument *count* overloading.) This means that the naming will be awkward at best. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|