Re: [PATCH] docs: proc: document ProtectionKey in smaps

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 4/7/26 20:58, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/7/26 8:12 AM, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> On 07/04/2026 16:42, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> I think you're trying to get across the point here that the kernel needs
>>> to know about protection keys, have it enabled, and be running on a CPU
>>> with pkey support.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> To me "system" is a bit ambiguous here but _can_ refer to the whole
>>> hardware/software system as a whole. To avoid redundancy, I'd say either:
>>>
>>> 	If both the kernel and the processor support protection keys...
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 	If the system supports protection keys...
>>
>> I see your point. By "system" I essentially mean the hardware (the SoC).
>> In general I would tend to avoid "processor" because not all CPUs in a
>> system necessarily have the same features, and some features require
>> hardware support beyond the CPU itself. Terminology is hard...
>>
>> Happy to replace "system" with "hardware" if that's clearer :)
> 
> I think that "system" is too nebulous there, so I would prefer to see
> "hardware" instead.

What if you're running in a VM where the feature is hidden ... ?
-- 
Cheers,

David