From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752978AbbJZUW7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:22:59 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:52192 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752414AbbJZUW5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:22:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:22:50 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Aravind Gopalakrishnan Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, luto@kernel.org, dvlasenk@redhat.com, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com, Wan Zongshun Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/cpufeature: Add CLZERO feature Message-ID: <20151026202250.GD11980@nazgul.tnic> References: <1445599113-8792-1-git-send-email-Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <1445599113-8792-3-git-send-email-Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <20151025103703.GB6084@nazgul.tnic> <562E42FB.6030600@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <562E42FB.6030600@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:12:59AM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: > For large part yes, wrapped code in patch form with commit message etc. > And modified comment a little bit. > > Does that still require his address in "From"? Yes, because it sounds like he was the author of the original patch. Btw, you should read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and sections 11 - "Sign your work" up until 14, in particular. That should clear things up for ya. > Haha. True. But looks like that's actually it's name. No one said hw people can name stuff properly. > If tautologies are not your thing, My thing is catching sloppiness in patches. > how about changing comments around > 0x80000001,ecx to say "AMD extended features 1" and > for 0x80000008, ebx say "AMD extended features 2"? No, I think you should add that bit to init_scattered_cpuid_features() instead. And btw, those Intel QoS single bit defines and the XSAVE stuff there should move to that function too - that's a pure waste having them in the cap_flags array. I'll fix that. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --