[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKm_sa869Xn-GVFPnka_B+-otf1FwoMtA-8PAYOaN99BnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:55:30 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:54 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 06:28:27PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > dynamic XCR0 breaks the installed base, I thought we had established
> > that.
>
> We should do a clear cut and have legacy stuff which has its legacy
> expectations on the XSTATE layout and not touch those at all.
>
> And then all new apps which will use these new APIs can go and request
> whatever fancy new state constellations we support. Including how they
> want their signals handled, etc.
>
> Fat states like avx512, amx etc will be off by default and apps
> explicitly requesting those, can get them.
>
> That's it.
100% agreement from me! (does anybody disagree?)
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists