>>> On 25.11.16 at 17:27, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 25.10.16 at 05:40, <yi.y....@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> 'cbm_len' and 'cbm_max' are CAT/CDP specific feature HW info. >> So encapsulate them into 'struct psr_cat_hw_info'. If new >> feature is supported, we can define other structure to save >> its HW info. > > Part of my problem following you here is that you talk about > cbm_max, but the code changes cos_max, which so far I had > understood would be a generic limit,
So I've gone and looked back at patch 1, where indeed you say the limits might differ. Which raises the question then what opt_cos_max is representing. Having seen v1, v2, and v3 up to patch 5 I start wondering whether the whole current code wouldn't better be ripped out and then be replaced by something written from scratch. That's because the split, while having reduced individual patch size, doesn't really make the whole thing much better reviewable. And the original implementation apparently simply didn't have in mind how future additions on the hardware side could look like. Thoughts? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
