[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210415052938.GA2325@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:29:38 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-abi@...r.kernel.org,
"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related
features
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:43:43AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:57:22PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that the "it isn't my use case of interest, so it
> > doesn't matter" line of reasoning has long been established as -EINVAL
> > ;-)
>
> I have only a very faint idea what you're trying to say here. Please
> explain properly and more verbosely what exactly has been established
> where?
What Len is saying is that not being interested in a feature is not an
argument for rejecting its adoption, which I'm perfectly fine with. But
conversely not being interested in a feature is also an argument for
insisting that its adoption doesn't harm other use cases (generally
speaking, not this specific case here).
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists