[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39d1597a-d165-4f79-a2fc-d37fc2822909@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:03:52 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@....com>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] x86/bugs: Declutter vulnerable CPU list
On 3/6/25 08:57, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> As one of the goal of the patch is to shorten the macro names and follow
> the VULNWL_<> pattern, would it make sense to rename VULNWL_INTEL to:
>
> #define VULNWL_VFM(vfm, whitelist) \
> X86_MATCH_VFM(vfm, whitelist)
I don't think saving 6 characters justifies the extra level of
abstraction personally.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists