* Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
>
> Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() anyway. Kill
> the least used and unused ones.
So cpufeature.h doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the difference
is
between all these variants:
cpu_has()
static_cpu_has()
static_cpu_has_safe()
it has this comment:
/*
* Static testing of CPU features. Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
* These are only valid after alternatives have run, but will statically
* patch the target code for additional performance.
*/
The second sentence does not parse. Why does the third sentence have a 'but'
for
listing properties? It's either bad grammer or tries to tell something that
isn't
being told properly.
It's entirely silent on the difference between static_cpu_has() and
static_cpu_has_safe() - what makes the second one 'safe'?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
