Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86/resctrl: Re-arrange RFTYPE flags and add more comments

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Babu,

On 5/5/2023 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Reinette,
> 
> On 5/4/2023 2:00 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Babu,
>>
>> On 4/17/2023 4:34 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>> Remove gaps in bit definitions of RFTYPE flags and add more comments
>> Why is it necessary to remove gaps in the bit definitions?
> 
> Removing the gaps is not necessary definitely. I thought adding
> comments will help adding new flags in the future.
> 

I agree that removing the gaps are not necessary.

> If you want me to drop this whole patch, I am fine with it.> 

The comments may be useful. If you decide to keep it please review
it for consistency. The comments should not increase confusion.
For example,
* in one instance you refer to "info" and "base" as components, in
  another you refer to them as directories, which is confusing since
  there is a "info" directory but no "base" directory.
* related to previous item, the comments start by referring to the
  "info" and "base" components but then the comments switch to
  describing a "info directory structure and "group structure"
* the separator (---) is used above a header in one instance and
  below a header in another
* in some places you use the syntax:
	--> <flag name> (<dir name>, <dir name>)
  in other places you use:
	--> <flag name>
	   --> (<dir name>)
	   --> (<dir name>)

Reinette