[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231012204347.4aei5jr64fsv2iv5@treble>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:43:47 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, leit@...a.com,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for each mitigation
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:51:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Another way to avoid ifdeffery:
> >
> > static enum retbleed_mitigation_cmd retbleed_cmd __ro_after_init =
> > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETBLEED) ? RETBLEED_CMD_AUTO : RETBLEED_CMD_OFF;
>
> I think we could make it a simple:
>
> static enum retbleed_mitigation_cmd retbleed_cmd __ro_after_init = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETBLEED);
>
> Because RETBLEED_CMD_AUTO && RETBLEED_CMD_OFF maps naturally to 1 and 0.
> Maybe add a comment to the enum to maintain this property in the future
> too.
Hm, that both obfuscates the default and makes it fragile. The fact
that it would need a comment to try to prevent breaking it in the future
is a clue that maybe we shouldn't do it ;-)
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists