Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:57:42 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: "Dugger, Donald D" <donald.d.dugger@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Shah, Rajesh" <rajesh.shah@intel.com>,
       akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo
Message-ID: <20051201175742.GN19515@wotan.suse.de>
References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017306158A1B@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com> <20051201165205.GB12616@krispykreme>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051201165205.GB12616@krispykreme>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1124
Lines: 27

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:52:05AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> 
> > Well, I really don't see a conflict here, TLA's for x86
> > architectures are orthogonal to PowerPC and vice versa
> > so this shouldn't cause any confusion.
> 
> Do you read all of the linux-kernel mailing list? :) Its caused me to
> have to look twice on a number of occasions. 
> 
> I know it isnt going to be fixed but I do wonder if intel knows how to
> use google before creating yet another TLA :)

It would be probably hopeless at least in the 2-6 letter TLA space. 
Every possible TLA has been already used for countless other things.
Just live with the collisions. Or use names instead of them.

cpuinfo flags are deeply architecture specific anyways, so I don't
think it makes much sense to try to get them unique over architectures.
In fact I think ppc doesn't even have a "flags" line. 

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/