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

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

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.

> >  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.

-- 
Catalin