[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tttemv9t.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 22:01:50 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 01/40] cpu/SMT: Make SMT control more robust against
enumeration failures
On Fri, Aug 04 2023 at 19:50, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 12:20:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> kernel/cpu.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>> @@ -630,6 +630,12 @@ static inline bool cpu_smt_allowed(unsig
>
> As discussed on IRC, the name and what the function does is kinda
> conflicting.
>
> What it actually queries is whether the CPU can be booted. So something
> like this ontop I guess:
No objections from my side.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists