[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231015150615.GAZSv/59aIrSnprCKg@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 17:06:15 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, tglx@...utronix.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 09:48:14AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> It adds clarity by making the options more self-documenting.
Why would you want to highlight mitigation-specific Kconfig options? You
grep for the symbol and you find what it is.
Why do the mitigation options need to self-document at all?
> For users who care about such things it makes it easier to identify
> which options they need to enable or disable. And it makes it clearer
> what those options do without having to go read the docs.
Sorry, if I see CONFIG_MITIGATE_X and CONFIG_X, I still wanna go see
what X is. And we enable the defaults for users - they don't really
need to read the docs.
> For developers it helps code readability: "ah, this nasty code is for a
> side channel mitigation". Also it makes it easier to grep for.
It doesn't matter - Kconfig options are Kconfig options. We grep
regardless.
> Right, but we have a global option for that. I was wondering if anybody
> actually uses the individual options (though I agree with Linus they
> should exist to help with code readability).
Read Linus' mail - there is some merit to having separate options.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists