search for: rhethorical

> ps. You still didn't answer my question about how not > compiling ext2 into the kernel brakes everything. > Don't worry, it was a rhethorical question. It's not rhetorical - it might not break it, it might break it... The point is: it's not tested by RH, it's not tested by CentOS, it probably (okay 99.99% here) works in a vanilla kernel - but does it work after all of RH's patches have been applied? It probably does,...

...cause any description invokes a wrong feeling of precision. E.g. what Florian already mentioned: sse4 - does it imply 4.1 and 4.2, or avx512: what of F, CD, ER, PF, VL, DQ, BW, IFMA, VBMI, 4VNNIW, 4FMAPS, VPOPCNTDQ, VNNI, VBMI2, BITALG, VP2INTERSECT, GFNI, VPCLMULQDQ, VAES does that one imply (rhethorical question, list shown just to make sillyness explicit). Regarding precision: I think we should rule out any mathematically correct scheme, e.g. one in which every ISA subset gets an index and the directory name contains a hexnumber constructed by bits with the corresponding index being one or z...

* Premachandra Mallappa: > [AMD Public Use] > > Hi Floarian, > >> I'm including a proposal for the levels below. I use single letters for them, but I expect that the concrete implementation of this proposal will use >> names like “x86-100”, “x86-101”, like in the glibc patch referenced above. (But we can discuss other approaches.) > > Personally I am not a big

Greetings all, First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email,