On 13.01.2026 11:45, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Tue Jan 13, 2026 at 9:58 AM CET, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 12.01.2026 18:15, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 12/01/2026 3:02 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/Kconfig >>>> @@ -331,8 +331,20 @@ config REQUIRE_NX >>>> was unavailable. However, if enabled, Xen will no longer boot on >>>> any CPU which is lacking NX support. >>>> >>>> -config UCODE_SCAN_DEFAULT >>>> +config MICROCODE_LOADING >>>> + bool "Microcode loading" >>>> + default y >>>> + help >>>> + Support updating the microcode revision of available CPUs with a newer >>>> + vendor-provided microcode blob. Microcode updates address some >>>> classes of >>>> + silicon defects. It's a very common delivery mechanism for fixes or >>>> + workarounds for speculative execution vulnerabilities. >>>> + >>>> + If unsure, say Y. >>> >>> Please don't re-iterate the default. It's a waste. >> >> Well, first of all we should be consistent: Either we always have such a >> brief >> sentence in the help texts of boolean options, or we never have. Who knows - >> cleaning this up thoughout the tree may even address some anomalies (where >> the >> sentence and the default setting disagree). > > Is that a request to add missing ones while fixing existing mismatches or > remove > them? Not as part of this series in any case, but do you have agreement on the > course of action?
While I agree with Andrew that these statements are redundant, I wouldn't call this "agreement" across all maintainers, at least not until a little more time has passed. Jan
