[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <511C207E.9030008@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:23:42 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] x86, cpu: Expand cpufeature facility to include
cpu bugs
On 02/11/2013 03:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> +#define __BUG_CHECK_BIT(bit) \
> +({ \
> + WARN_ON(bit >> 5 < NCAPINTS); \
> + bit; \
> +})
> +
Do we need this? Either way, if we do, I would suggest doing something
like:
if (__builtin_constant_p(bit))
bad_bug_number();
... and flag bad_bug_number as a compile time error, since the vast
majority of the time the bit number will be constant.
However, I don't think it is necessary. In order for this to ever
trigger someone must have known they were testing for a bug, and yet not
used the X86_BUG_ macros, which seems very unlikely.
> #define X86_BUG_F00F (NCAPINTS*32+ 0) /* Intel F00F bug */
> #define X86_BUG_FDIV (NCAPINTS*32+ 1) /* FPU FDIV bug */
> +#define X86_BUG_COMA (NCAPINTS*32+ 2) /* Cyrix 6x86 coma */
Just to make it a bit cleaner once we have more than one word of bug
tests, I would suggest macroizing this:
#define X86_BUG(x) (NCAPINTS*32 + (x))
... and then just ...
#define X86_BUG_F00F X86_BUG(0)
#define X86_BUG_FDIV X86_BUG(1)
... and so on.
The only reason we *don't* do that with the features is that they tend
to come chunkwise in the form of CPUID words.
-hpa
--
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