On 06/20/2014 01:00 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:54:14AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> No, it has to be cpu_has() -- the dynamic, CPU-specific version.
>
> Ok, sry, but I have to ask: why cpu_has? Why not boot_cpu_has and thus
> static_cpu_has_safe?
>
Because the whole point is testing each CPU and warn if it is unsuitable.
static-anything is just plain useless, because we test this once for
each CPU and patching a branch that we are never going to cross again is
just wasted effort.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
