[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mu7bmu63.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:33:56 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] kvm: vmx: virtualize split lock detection
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com> writes:
> On 4/16/2020 5:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> I briefly thought about renaming the flag to TIF_SLD_ENABLED, set it by
>> default and update the 5 places where it is used. But that's
>> inconsistent as well simply because it does not make any sense to set
>> that flag when detection is not available or disabled on the command
>> line.
>>
>
> Assuming you'll pick TIF_SLD_DISABLED, I guess we need to set this flag
> by default for the case SLD is no available or disabled on the command,
> for consistency?
No, because nothing cares if SLD is off. There is no way to make this
fully consistent under all circumstances.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists