Re: [PATCH v5 03/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce XSAVES system states

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 10/17/18 3:41 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

>> @@ -702,6 +703,7 @@ static int init_xstate_size(void)
>>   */
>>  static void fpu__init_disable_system_xstate(void)
>>  {
>> +	xfeatures_mask_all = 0;
>>  	xfeatures_mask_user = 0;
>>  	cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_OSXSAVE);
>>  	fpu__xstate_clear_all_cpu_caps();
>> @@ -717,6 +719,8 @@ void __init fpu__init_system_xstate(void)
>>  	static int on_boot_cpu __initdata = 1;
>>  	int err;
>>  	int i;
>> +	u64 cpu_user_xfeatures_mask;
>> +	u64 cpu_system_xfeatures_mask;
> 
> Please sort function local variables declaration in a reverse christmas
> tree order:
> 
> 	<type> longest_variable_name;
> 	<type> shorter_var_name;
> 	<type> even_shorter;
> 	<type> i;

Hi,

Would you mind explaining this request? (requirement?)
Other than to say that it is the preference of some maintainers,
please say Why it is preferred.

and since the <type>s above won't typically be the same length,
it's not for variable name alignment, right?

thanks,
-- 
~Randy