[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yzs+IRgkINtgIp5T@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 21:55:13 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 23/23] x86/process: Reset hardware history in context
switch
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:49:35PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Since I did not implement a DISABLE_MASK bit nor a CONFIG_ option for
> HRESET, I thought that static_cpu_has() was sufficient.
The only function that should be used to query X86_FEATURE_ flags is
cpu_feature_enabled().
> I am not against using cpu_feature_enabled(), I just want to confirm that
> I also need to implement the DISABLE_MASK bit and the CONFIG_ option.
You don't have to.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists