[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90ec75f7-f094-b7ac-a635-0c320cc94bcb@codeweavers.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:23:58 -0500
From: Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
kernel@...ccoli.net, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Joshua Ashton <joshua@...ggi.es>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Pierre-Loup Griffais <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/split_lock: Restore warn mode (and add a new one) to
avoid userspace regression
On 9/29/22 11:26, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Let's be precise here, though. It isn't that folks can't play. It's
> that we *intentionally* put something in place that kept them from
> playing. They can play just fine after disabling split lock detection.
I guess that the statement that they can play is arguable. To do it, the
player (even capabale and willing to go as far as tweaking kernel
options, which alone may be a showstopper for the game to be called
playable) should get aware that the issue they are having can be solved
this way. IMO such level of involvement effectively means that a user
who is not technically advanced and not perceiving troubleshooting Linux
specific issues as a part of game play just can't play it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists