[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aA0sNu0gcjlvhlDT@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:55:50 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, 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,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
"Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86/cpu: rework instruction set selection
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Dropping CMOV would mean dropping P5 support.
Yeah, I think we should make the cutoff at the 686 level. Is there any
strong reason not to do that? Stable kernels will still exist for a
very long time for ancient boards.
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists