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

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 05/12/2024 3:25 pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 03:04:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> No, probably Robing forgot to pass --no-thread to git.

Yeah, this was just a tangent from poking around figuring out how to 
detect GCS being enabled for the main patch.

>>>   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>
> 
> Thanks. This patch will go in via the arm64 tree. I'll leave the other
> for the smmu tree.

Thanks!

Robin.