[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b09a7be32cef407cb6b6361554411bda@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 21:58:03 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@...radead.org>,
"torvic9@...lbox.org" <torvic9@...lbox.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com"
<clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"graysky@...hlinux.us" <graysky@...hlinux.us>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] x86, Makefile: Add new generic x86-64 settings
v2/v3/v4
From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 18 August 2021 08:15
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 04:24:48PM +0200, torvic9@...lbox.org wrote:
> > + Generic x86-64 CPU.
> > + Run equally well on all x86-64 CPUs with min support of x86-64-v2.
>
> > + help
> > + Generic x86-64-v3 CPU with v3 instructions.
> > + Run equally well on all x86-64 CPUs with min support of x86-64-v3.
> > +
>
> > + help
> > + Generic x86-64 CPU with v4 instructions.
> > + Run equally well on all x86-64 CPUs with min support of x86-64-v4.
>
> How the f&%$% is a user supposed to know what these garbage descriptions
> are supposed to mean?
My thoughts.
I then looked up the link.
Most of the extra instructions are the AVX related ones.
They better not get enabled for a kernel build at all.
I wish I knew whether 'no-avx' actually implied 'no-avx2' and
all later avx options?
Or do kernel builds have to spot each new option and disable
in in turn?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists