[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160121193910.GI21930@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:39:10 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/cpufeature: Remove static_cpu_has()
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Looks good except for the subject line -- you didn't actually remove
> static_cpu_has :)
Yeah, a proper explanation didn't fit in the commit name line. So I did:
"x86/cpufeature: Remove the old unsafe static_cpu_has()
... and rename the safe one to static_cpu_has(), thereby making the safe
variant the default.
..."
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists