[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250822143012.GFaKh-9DsBRQfapi87@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:30:12 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
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 2/5] x86/bugs: Use early_param for spectre_v2
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 02:12:55PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> It could, but I felt this was a way to logically separate the code vs having
> one giant function. All the code in spectre_v2_check_cmd() does one thing:
> verifies if the chosen command is possible on this system. The rest of
> spectre_v2_select_mitigation() then uses the cmd to actually pick
> a mitigation.
>
> Since these were two distinct flows, I thought having a separate function
> made sense to make the code more readable. But that was just my opinion,
> I won't object if you want to inline it.
Right, since we're making all the mitigations handling uniform, I'd prefer to
have the same code pattern here too. The function does get a bit big but it is
clear that it does two things: (1) checks the command before it (2) selects
the mitigation. And the others do the same so...
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists