linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/15] x86/cpu/intel: Replace early family 6 checks with VFM ones

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241221164848.7a4f0fcb@dsl-u17-10>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:48:48 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo
 Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Shishkin
 <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian
 Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Kan
 Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Rafael
 J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Andy
 Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/15] x86/cpu/intel: Replace early family 6 checks
 with VFM ones

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 07:57:10 -0800
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:

> On 12/21/24 02:35, David Laight wrote:
> >>  #define INTEL_PENTIUM_PRO		IFM(6, 0x01)
> >> +#define INTEL_PENTIUM_II_KLAMATH	IFM(6, 0x03)
> >> +#define INTEL_PENTIUM_III_TUALATIN	IFM(6, 0x0B)
> >> +#define INTEL_PENTIUM_M_DOTHAN		IFM(6, 0x0D)
> >>  
> >>  #define INTEL_CORE_YONAH		IFM(6, 0x0E)  
> > 
> > I think I'd add all the extra defines in one patch.  
> 
> I actually prefer them being with their first user. That way, if patches
> get dropped or moved, nothing can be in the wrong order or unnecessary.

Does 'unnecessary' matter.
It isn't as though there are hundreds of them.

	David