[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101004214838.GA26084@liondog.tnic>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:21:33PM -0700
> On 10/04/2010 02:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.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.
I think the cleanup should be easy: on 64-bit unconditionally return
p6_nops in find_nop_table() since every 64-bit processor should support
them and on 32-bit never return p6_nops since X86_FEATURE_NOPL is not
set there and fall back to intel_nops on non-AMD. Which means we can get
rid of X86_FEATURE_NOPL altogether. Too radical?
Hmmm...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists