linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to check for min microcode revisions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190205122641.GM21801@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:26:41 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to check for min
 microcode revisions

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:46:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So Boris asked me to remove the tail comments (done), but what about I
> do: % s/\<x86\>/&_family/g, on the rest of this too? I know we have
> cpuinfo_x86::x86 history, but at some point we should rename that too.

My argument was to keep them the same as cpuinfo_x86's members so that
there's no confusion.

But renaming the family member to x86_family makes sense to me. We
should do it some flag day.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.