Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: cpufeature: Add GCS to cpucap_is_possible()

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 844 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:48:10PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Since system_supports_gcs() ends up referring to cpucap_is_possible(),
> teach the latter about GCS for consistency with similar features.

Not clear why this is part of a series, there's no obvious relationship
with patch 1?

>  static inline bool system_supports_gcs(void)
>  {
> -	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_GCS) &&
> -		alternative_has_cap_unlikely(ARM64_HAS_GCS);
> +	return alternative_has_cap_unlikely(ARM64_HAS_GCS);
>  }

Ah, this is bitrot since the series was on the list for so long.  As
well as HAFT which Rutland mentioned it looks like _bti_kernel(),
_irq_prio_masking() and possibly others have the same thing.  Ideally
we'd have no uses of IS_ENABLED() in these functions so it's a bit more
obvious.  In any case

Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]