[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241114095450.GCZzXI6rY0s-OWJ6X1@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:54:50 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Amit Shah <amit@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
amit.shah@....com, thomas.lendacky@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
corbet@....net, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
sandipan.das@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
Babu.Moger@....com, david.kaplan@....com, dwmw@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] x86: cpu/bugs: update SpectreRSB comments for
AMD
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:47:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I think in-line documentation is better in this case: the primary defense
> against mistakes and misunderstandings is in the source code itself.
>
> And "it's too long" is an argument *against* moving it out into some obscure
> place 99% of developers aren't even aware of...
You mean developers can't even read?
/*
* See Documentation/arch/x86/ for details on this mitigation
* implementation.
*/
And if we want to expand the "why" and do proper documentation on the
implementation decisions of each mitigation, we still keep it there in the
code?
Or we do one part in Documentation/ and another part in the code?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists