[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d71dc25e-ef26-b6c3-6c8e-fc5727b76a23@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 11:02:30 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, antonio.gomez.iglesias@...ux.intel.com,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO
Stale Data
On 7/29/22 10:59, Pawan Gupta wrote:
>> + if (!boot_cpu_unknown_bug(bug))
>> + return sprintf(buf, "Unknown\n");
>>
>> Thoughts?
> Sounds good. Similar to this Borislav suggested to add
> X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN. I will see if I can combine both approaches.
I'd say Borislav's is better if there is going to be a small number of
"unknown" things in total. Mine might be better if we expect a *bunch*
of them.
In other words, I'm rooting for Borislav's.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists