From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754544AbcH0H2r (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:28:47 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:38236 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751152AbcH0H2p (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:28:45 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:28:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Boris Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Better memcpy_mcsafe()
Message-ID: <20160827072833.GA10883@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1472244975.git.tony.luck@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1472244975.git.tony.luck@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:

> The original version of this used a check of the x86_model_id string
> for the magic "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-" to determine whether we are
> running on a cpu that supports machine check recovery.
> 
> Boris tried to talk me out of that, but at the time I didn't think
> there was a viable alternate option, and somehow he fell for that line.
> 
> It turns out there is a better way, that isn't as painful as I thought
> it might be.  It does help guarantee future employment, as I'll
> have to add a new quirk for each CPU generation. But the check for "E7"
> would have eventually failed and required a patch too.
> 
> The downside of a quirk is that it runs after the X86_FEATURE patching
> code. So instead of "static_cpu_has()" we use "static_branch_unlikely(&mcsafe_key)"

So why not move it to the early PCI quirk code in arch/x86/ and get rid of this 
quirk within a quirk?

Thanks,

	Ingo