x86: Support Intel AVX VNNI

[Jan Beulich]

On 15.10.2020 18:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 9:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 15.10.2020 17:34, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> I continue to think that the behavior as implemented is not the best
>>>> possible choice. Therefore I'd like to at least hear the arguments that
>>>> led to this decision.
>>>
>>> Please send me your detailed comments.  I will forward it to our internal
>>> group.
>>
>> I've given my two points already - there are two cases where the
>> pseudo prefix shouldn't be required. Plus, as also said, the
>> disassembler shouldn't display it by default.
> 
> It needs to be much more than that to have any impact on a
> decision made years ago.

I'm sorry, but again: A decision made internally, years ago or not,
cannot possibly be the final one in an open source world. It shouldn't
even need me to provide extended arguments against, when the basic
request is to first of all supply the reasoning behind that decision.
Maybe once I know the the train of thought, I agree (and withdraw my
counter arguments)?

H.J., let me be very clear: Since there's a general pattern here in
that it often looks like technical disagreement gets resolved simply
by more or less harsh discarding of arguments (and, not just once,
deliberate introduction of bugs), I'm very willing to let this
escalate, as here you even prevent a technical discussion by hiding
your arguments. The way you drive things in certain cases is, imo,
not how things ought to be done for open source projects. And yes -
I'm not forgetting that you're the maintainer, and hence you get the
final say. (I wonder though whether, given my work over the last
years, I shouldn't have my maintainership area extended beyond Intel
syntax aspects, e.g. to all of x86's gas/ and opcodes/.)

Jan