Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 05/13] x86: expose CBM length and COS number information

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 29.05.15 at 11:23, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 09:07 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 29.05.15 at 04:47, <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:26:03PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > --- a/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
>> >> > +++ b/xen/include/public/sysctl.h
>> >> > @@ -694,6 +694,20 @@ struct xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo {
>> >> >  typedef struct xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo_t;
>> >> >  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_sysctl_pcitopoinfo_t);
>> >> >  
>> >> > +#define XEN_SYSCTL_PSR_CAT_get_l3_info               0
>> >> > +struct xen_sysctl_psr_cat_op {
>> >> > +    uint32_t cmd;       /* IN: XEN_SYSCTL_PSR_CAT_* */
>> >> > +    uint32_t target;    /* IN: socket to be operated on */
>> >> 
>> >> If this is always the socket number, why would the variable be
>> >> named anything other than "socket". If otoh subsequent patches
>> >> use it differently, I think the comment should be omitted now
>> >> rather than being dropped then (or it should be given its final
>> >> wording from the beginning).
>> > 
>> > Or 'target to be operated on'?
>> 
>> Fine with me. Just not something that may end up being confusing.
>> 
> So, I really don't want to turn this into pure bikeshedding, but, for a
> field called 'target', a comment saying 'target to be operated on' seems
> rather pointless, and I'd go for omitting it (for now).

Right - my earlier response was merely meant to say I'm not
opposed to a non-confusing comment, not that I see a strict
need for a mostly redundant one here.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel