From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/13] x86: expose CBM length and COS
 number information
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:07:34 +0100
Message-ID: <55683A66020000780007ED50@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1432197704-20816-1-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
	<1432197704-20816-6-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
	<5567338B020000780007E9AE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150529024713.GD18422@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150529024713.GD18422@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, dario.faggioli@citrix.com, Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, will.auld@intel.com, keir@xen.org, dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 29.05.15 at 04:47, <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> 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.

Jan