On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:01:37AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:48:28AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > On 03/05/18 14:20, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h > > > index bc51b72fafd4..9dcb4d1b14f5 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h > > > @@ -48,7 +48,10 @@ > > > #define ARM64_HAS_CACHE_IDC 27 > > > #define ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC 28 > > > #define ARM64_HW_DBM 29 > > > +#define ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH 30 > > > +#define ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_IMP_DEF 31 > > > > Where are these caps used ? I couldn't find anything in the series > > that uses them. Otherwise looks good to me. > > Those were consumed by KVM support, which needed to detect if CPUs had > mismatched support. Currently they're just placeholders as I need a > cpucap value for the separate IMP-DEF / architected probing cases. > > I *could* get rid of those and just have the ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH case > log "Address authentication", but I wanted to have separate messages for > IMP-DEF vs architected. Why? Surely it only matters if we find a mixture, and then you'll shout loudly. I'd certainly be in favour of reducing the number of caps you're adding here, particularly if they're just there for a line in dmesg. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
