From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] cpu/speculation: Add 'cpu_spec_mitigations=' cmdline options Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:29:01 +1000 Message-ID: <87bm1cufbm.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> References: <20190405131211.GE23348@zn.tnic> <20190405142048.burthk2jnpcvi2om@treble> <20190405152059.GG23348@zn.tnic> <20190405160136.GI23348@zn.tnic> <20190405161852.nmpk22omgiety4df@treble> <87sguqwgu7.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Jon Masters , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arc List-ID: Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Josh Poimboeuf writes: >> >> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it >> >> be: >> >> >> >> spec_mitigations= >> >> >> >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And >> >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so... >> > >> > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections. >> >> What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :) > > Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally. I guess that's true, usually :) cheers