Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753106AbcJJQB5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:01:57 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:53696 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752652AbcJJQB4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:01:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,325,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1062861993" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/18] x86/intel_rdt: Feature discovery To: Nilay Vaish , Fenghua Yu References: <1475894763-64683-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <1475894763-64683-5-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Tony Luck , Peter Zijlstra , Stephane Eranian , Borislav Petkov , Shaohua Li , David Carrillo-Cisneros , Ravi V Shankar , Sai Prakhya , Vikas Shivappa , linux-kernel , x86 From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <57FBBB68.4090008@intel.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:01:44 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 959 Lines: 14 On 10/08/2016 10:11 AM, Nilay Vaish wrote: >> > #define X86_FEATURE_RTM ( 9*32+11) /* Restricted Transactional Memory */ >> > #define X86_FEATURE_CQM ( 9*32+12) /* Cache QoS Monitoring */ >> > #define X86_FEATURE_MPX ( 9*32+14) /* Memory Protection Extension */ >> > +#define X86_FEATURE_RDT_A ( 9*32+15) /* Resource Director Technology Allocation */ >> > #define X86_FEATURE_AVX512F ( 9*32+16) /* AVX-512 Foundation */ >> > #define X86_FEATURE_AVX512DQ ( 9*32+17) /* AVX-512 DQ (Double/Quad granular) Instructions */ >> > #define X86_FEATURE_RDSEED ( 9*32+18) /* The RDSEED instruction */ > I think these #defines are specific to Intel. I would prefer if we > have _INTEL_ somewhere in them. While that isn't a horrible idea, it's also not something that we've enforced at *all* in the past. Would you suggest that we do this only for features in the generic CPUID leaves, or all features?