[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB60832232588EE1CEBE96F64CFCEE2@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 17:29:20 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)"
<peterz@...radead.org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, "Edgecombe, Rick P"
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mateusz Guzik
<mjguzik@...il.com>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
X86_VENDOR_INTEL
> Changes since v1:
> 1) More detailed commit description.
> 2) Changed "Fixes" tag. Commit 4db64279bc2b merely revealed a twelve
> year old gap in the implementation of x86_match_cpu().
Changes since v2:
Use fix suggested by Thomas & Boris that doesn't risk breakage from
changing the value of X86_VENDOR_INTEL #define.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists