linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/cpu: amd: Define processor families

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20201202165756.GE2951@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:57:56 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@...il.com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, wei.huang2@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/cpu: amd: Define processor families

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:13:02PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Didn't realize the core was internal only.

F10h is not internal only - all I'm saying is that "K10" wasn't use
inside AMD AFAIR.

> Makes sense - I will follow your suggestion in the next version.

Well, I don't think it is worth the churn, TBH.

I'd prefer comments over the f/m/s checks which explain what is matched
much better than defines for family numbers which are inadequate when
one needs to match the model too, for one.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette