From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:19:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CAA52EF.3030302@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiniYToWCeVvMXmyUFTudW9g_mpGXRMwQ20kxXUk@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/04/2010 03:17 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2010 02:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, cpu_has() depends on:
>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
>>>
>>> Ahh. Right you are. The place that depends on just P6_NOP is the
>>> default NOP choice logic in <asm/nops.h>
>>>
>>> But the end result ends up being the same: can we please clean this
>>> all up so that it isn't so confusing? Rather than add to the
>>> confusion?
>>>
>>
>> Agreed that this should be cleaned up. However, in the meantime I'd
>> like to keep Borislav's patch in the tree since it makes the code
>> technically correct at least.
>
> Another piece of the confusion I noticed a couple of days ago:
> X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY defaults to "6" if X86_32 &&
> X86_P6_NOP; whereas X86_P6_NOP depends on X86_64.
>
Again, it's completely consistent -- if you keep in mind that
CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP depending on X86_64 is a policy decision; that policy
can theoretically be changed. However, it really doesn't seem worth it
to ever contemplate at this point.
-hpa
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-04 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-03 9:37 NOPL on 32-bit Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 14:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-03 15:22 ` [PATCH] x86, cpu: X86_FEATURE_NOPL should be disabled on 32-bit only Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 18:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-03 20:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-03 22:22 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 7:31 ` [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 20:36 ` [tip:x86/cpu] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2010-10-05 9:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-05 16:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 16:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 20:47 ` [PATCH] " Linus Torvalds
2010-10-04 21:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-04 21:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 21:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-04 21:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-05 6:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-10-04 22:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2010-10-04 22:19 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CAA52EF.3030302@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox