On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't
>> >>> complain
>> >>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged.
>> >>> Thi
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain
> >>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged.
> >>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on
>
> On Sep 29, 2018, at 9:20 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 16:01 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
>> wrote:
>>>
On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuv
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 16:01 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 28 September 2018 at 15:4
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheu
On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
>> > wrote:
>> >> >> +typedef enum {
>> >> >> + HAVE_NO_SI
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> >> >> +typedef enum {
> >> >> + HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
> >> >> + HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
> >> >> +
On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> wrote:
>> >> +typedef enum {
>> >> + HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
>> >> + HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
>> >> + HAVE_SIMD_IN_USE = 1 << 31
>> >> +} simd_context_t;
>> >> +
>>
>> Oh,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> >> +typedef enum {
> >> + HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
> >> + HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
> >> + HAVE_SIMD_IN_USE = 1 << 31
> >> +} simd_context_t;
> >> +
>
> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain
>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:28 AM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> Given that this patch applies to all architectures at once, it is
> probably better to drop the unrelated reordering hunks to avoid
> conflicts.
Ack. Will retain order for v7.
> > +static __must_check inline bool may_use_simd(void)
> > +{
(+ Joe)
On 28 September 2018 at 10:28, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 25 September 2018 at 16:56, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> Sometimes it's useful to amortize calls to XSAVE/XRSTOR and the related
>> FPU/SIMD functions over a number of calls, because FPU restoration is
>> quite expensive. This add
On 25 September 2018 at 16:56, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Sometimes it's useful to amortize calls to XSAVE/XRSTOR and the related
> FPU/SIMD functions over a number of calls, because FPU restoration is
> quite expensive. This adds a simple header for carrying out this pattern:
>
> simd_contex
Sometimes it's useful to amortize calls to XSAVE/XRSTOR and the related
FPU/SIMD functions over a number of calls, because FPU restoration is
quite expensive. This adds a simple header for carrying out this pattern:
simd_context_t simd_context;
simd_get(&simd_context);
while ((item =
13 matches
Mail list logo
