[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801051449510.1724@nanos>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:51:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/feature: Detect the x86 feature to control
Speculation
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Now about the late microcode my preference is not for static_cpu_has
> and forcing the early microcode, but my long term preference is to
> start with this/boot_cpu_has() and then turn static_cpu_has in a true
> static key so that setup_force_cpu_cap shall also flip the static key
> for all static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_SUPPORT) also if run any time
> after boot and not only if run before the static_cpu_has alternative
> is patched in.
Fair enough. We can avoid the static_cpu_has() to begin with and fix it
later.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists