[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509BDCB2-5203-460B-8317-043A07CB38B0@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 16:33:27 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"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 v2] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just X86_VENDOR_INTEL
On May 17, 2024 1:54:33 PM PDT, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>>> This is particularly pathetic as there already is a canonical string
>>> representation of the vendor ID!
>>
>> I agree, but that train has left the station long ago,
>
>Is that "GenuineIntel" and "AuthenticAMD"? While canonical, 96-bit values seem less
>easy to use than simple small integers.
>
>-Tony
>
Not for internal use, but for exporting in strings.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists