On 09/10/19 21:16, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:57:30AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 07/10/19 21:56, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:12:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 04/10/19 23:56, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c >>>>> index cb2e49810d68..4eec8889b0ff 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c >>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,10 @@ >>>>> >>>>> #include "cpu.h" >>>>> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_VMX_FEATURE_NAMES >>>>> +extern const char * const x86_vmx_flags[NVMXINTS*32]; >>>>> +#endif >>>>> + >>>>> /* >>>>> * Get CPU information for use by the procfs. >>>>> */ >>>>> @@ -102,6 +106,17 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>>>> if (cpu_has(c, i) && x86_cap_flags[i] != NULL) >>>>> seq_printf(m, " %s", x86_cap_flags[i]); >>>> >>>> I'm afraid this is going to break some scripts in the wild. I would >>>> simply remove the seq_puts below. >>> >>> Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble connecting the dots... >> >> Somebody is bound to have scripts doing "grep ^flags.*ept /proc/cpuinfo" >> or checking for VMX flags under some kind of "if (/^flags/)", so it's >> safer not to separate VMX and non-VMX flags. > > Are the names of the flags considered ABI? If so, then the rename of > "vnmi" to "virtual_nmis" also needs to be dropped. :-( Yes, they are. :/ Paolo
