[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1c1c25f4-2aa3-42cb-87e2-0bc54b2d0e07@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:39:39 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>, Sean Christopherson
<seanjc@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shishkin@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/cpufeature: Add feature dependency checks
On 10/30/24 16:31, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Unexpected failures can occur when the kernel tries to use such a
> feature. Rather than debug such scenarios, it would be better to
> disable the feature upfront.
It Looks OK and sane to me. It's nice that it inherits the "Loop until
we get a stable state" from do_clear_cpu_cap().
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists