[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD76EDB-A5E6-4F32-8C6C-B47D7456C206@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:33:37 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 08/26] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce helpers to manage the
XSTATE buffer dynamically
On Aug 12, 2021, at 12:44, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 07:59:39AM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>>
>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES))
>
> cpu_feature_enabled
Without DISABLE_XSAVES or something under ifdef CONFIG_X86_XX in
$arch/x86/include/asm/disable-features.h, I don’t see the difference with this
macro. Am I missing anything here? Or, boot_cpu_has() is going to be
deprecated everywhere?
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists