[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251008160343.146bd470@mordecai.tesarici.cz>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:03:43 +0200
From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, "maintainer:X86
ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>, "open list:X86
ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/tsx: Get the tsx= command line parameter
with early_param()
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 15:50:02 +0300
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com> wrote:
> On 26.09.25 г. 21:01 ч., Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > Use early_param() to get the value of the tsx= command line parameter.
> > Although cmdline_find_option() works fine, the option is later reported
> > as unknown and passed to user space. The latter is not a real issue, but
> > the former is confusing and makes people wonder if the tsx= parameter had
> > any effect and double-check for typos unnecessarily.
> >
> > The behavior changes slightly if "tsx" is given without any argument (which
> > is invalid syntax). Prior to this patch, the kernel logged an error message
> > and disabled TSX. With this patch, the parameter is ignored. The new
> > behavior is consistent with other parameters, e.g. "tsx_async_abort".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>
>
> LGTM, also could you include some rationale why early_param vs __setup
> for example, or arch_param_cb (which by the way has yet to find its
> first user).
I'd love to, but I'm a noob myself, so I simply followed Borislav's
advice here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250915143909.GAaMglDd5oRSPDDuqu@fat_crate.local/
@Borislav: Would you mind explaining your request to use early_param()?
Petr T
Powered by blists - more mailing lists