[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806221125240.2402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:28:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] x86/split_lock: Enable #AC exception for split
locked accesses
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> The control knob for firmware is to choose continuing firmware execution
> by disabling #AC split lock (default) or stopping firmware execution
> by enabling #AC for split lock. Stopping firmware execution may be useful
> in hard real time system to identify any split lock issue on the platform.
There is no maybe on a real-time system. Either the thing is sane or it's
not. There is no middle ground. The default has to be fail otherwise
firmware wont be fixed ever.
> So the control knobs may be useful for different scenarios, right?
The control knobs are just helping to proliferate crap, so they are not
useful, they are outright counterproductive.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists