[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB6083AADC97E50462C1137D71FC3B2@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:00:59 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/74] x86/cpu/vfm: Add/initialize x86_vfm field to struct
cpuinfo_x86
> Looking at this more - you don't really need the vendor to be part of
> this as the CPUID leaf ranges should *actually* be disjunct. Actually...
It's essentially free to do this, and it makes the code more robust. It
becomes impossible to check model without also checking vendor
and family at the same time.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists