On 21/08/18 14:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.18 at 14:13, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 21/08/18 12:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -219,17 +216,13 @@ static int __init parse_spec_ctrl(const
>>> }
>>> custom_param("spec-ctrl", parse_spec_ctrl);
>>>
>>> -int8_t __read_mostly opt_pv_l1tf = -1;
>>> +uint8_t __read_mostly opt_pv_l1tf = OPT_PV_L1TF_DOMU_DEFAULT;
>>>
>>> static __init int parse_pv_l1tf(const char *s)
>>> {
>>> const char *ss;
>>> int val, rc = 0;
>>>
>>> - /* Inhibit the defaults as an explicit choice has been given. */
>>> - if ( opt_pv_l1tf == -1 )
>>> - opt_pv_l1tf = 0;
>>
>> Wouldn't setting the default value (DOMU) here be enough? Same for
>> xpti below?
>
> No, because we want to defer default processing until we've
> actually obtained the necessary data. While parsing we don't
> know yet whether "default" means "on" or "off".
>
> Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean?
I meant:
if ( opt_pv_l1tf == -1 )
- opt_pv_l1tf = 0;
+ opt_pv_l1tf = OPT_PV_L1TF_DOMU;
This starts at the default setting and then applies the settings of the
sub-options on top of it, instead of starting at "everything off".
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
