[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231016124654.GDZS0wvqJlsf+iVAeu@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:46:54 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for each mitigation
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:07:59PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Unless someone like Linus shuts down this effort with a NAK, this kind of
> harmonization would be welcome IMHO:
Harmonization being done for whom?
Because I doubt users read Kconfig names. So you must be wanting it for
us, who do stare at that code.
Which brings me to my initial question from uptread:
"What does the same namespace give you? So you see in the code a bunch
of ifdeffery and some or all of them have CONFIG_MITIGATION_ prepended.
To me it doesn't matter whether they're mitigations or not - it is just
the next Kconfig symbol."
IOW, I don't see the particular reason for having those namespaced. But
since you and Josh care so much and I don't - not that much :-) - and
I definitely won't be doing the work, feel free.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists