[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241210152438.GCZ1hdNlfm11njllGk@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:24:38 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/35] x86/bugs: Restructure mds mitigation
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 03:01:54PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> > > +/* Return TRUE if any VERW-based mitigation is enabled. */ static
> > > +bool __init mitigate_any_verw(void)
> >
> > s/mitigate_any_verw/verw_enabled/ ?
>
> Ok
Right, except "verw_enabled" asks whether VERW is enabled while what we want
to ask here is whether mitigation through VERW is enabled.
So verw_mitigation_enabled() perhaps?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists