[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6187A454-B995-45A3-8356-ED7CBB4E478F@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:35:52 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Xin Li (Intel)" <xin@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, will@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, yury.norov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, nik.borisov@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/cpufeatures: Add {required,disabled} feature configs
On February 15, 2025 6:30:32 AM PST, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 06:27:04AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The point was that that is the *only* use of this particular flag, I believe.
>
>Now you've confused me :-\. Perhaps elaborate a bit more what do you mean...
>
A bunch of flags in Kconfig.cpu have exactly the meaning of "this CPU is guaranteed to have this feature."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists