From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:19:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CAA52EF.3030302@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiniYToWCeVvMXmyUFTudW9g_mpGXRMwQ20kxXUk@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/04/2010 03:17 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2010 02:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, cpu_has() depends on:
>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
>>>
>>> Ahh. Right you are. The place that depends on just P6_NOP is the
>>> default NOP choice logic in <asm/nops.h>
>>>
>>> But the end result ends up being the same: can we please clean this
>>> all up so that it isn't so confusing? Rather than add to the
>>> confusion?
>>>
>>
>> Agreed that this should be cleaned up. However, in the meantime I'd
>> like to keep Borislav's patch in the tree since it makes the code
>> technically correct at least.
>
> Another piece of the confusion I noticed a couple of days ago:
> X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY defaults to "6" if X86_32 &&
> X86_P6_NOP; whereas X86_P6_NOP depends on X86_64.
>
Again, it's completely consistent -- if you keep in mind that
CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP depending on X86_64 is a policy decision; that policy
can theoretically be changed. However, it really doesn't seem worth it
to ever contemplate at this point.
-hpa
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-04 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-03 9:37 NOPL on 32-bit Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 14:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-03 15:22 ` [PATCH] x86, cpu: X86_FEATURE_NOPL should be disabled on 32-bit only Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 18:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-03 20:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 22:22 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 7:31 ` [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 20:36 ` [tip:x86/cpu] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2010-10-05 9:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-05 16:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 16:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 20:47 ` [PATCH] " Linus Torvalds
2010-10-04 21:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-04 21:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 21:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 6:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 22:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2010-10-04 22:19 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CAA52EF.3030302@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.