[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1458056595.6393.332.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:43:15 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"paul.gortmaker@...driver.com" <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm/pat: Change pat_disable() to emulate PAT
table
On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 11:01 +0000, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:11:16PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > - pat = PAT(0, WB) | PAT(1, WT) | PAT(2, UC_MINUS) | PAT(3, UC)
> > |
> > - PAT(4, WB) | PAT(5, WT) | PAT(6, UC_MINUS) | PAT(7, UC);
> > + if (cpu_has_pat) {
>
> Please use on init paths boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT) and on fast paths
> static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT). No more of that cpu_has_XXX ugliness.
'cpu_has_pat' is defined as 'boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT)'. Do you mean
it should explicitly use 'boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PAT)'?
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists