linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86 idle: remove NOP cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:23:55 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86 idle: remove NOP cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works_ok flag

> Do we know whether a distro adds this to the boot line? Do we know about users 
> relying on it.

I certainly had hardware that needed it. Don't any more but this is more
trying to rip out stuff without letting nature take its course.

It's a trivial feature item.

> > Do we really need both?
> 
> Probably not, as i said i do not disagree - i just think it should be more 
> explicit. Make it a: "users of CPU models X beware" commit title, not 'remove 
> inactive code' ...

Just make the one config variable respond to both boot configuration
options. The parser is __init code anyway so discarded so the actual code
cost of compatibility is exactly NIL.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/