On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 02:02:22PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 01:48:34PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:52 AM Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -7521,6 +7527,10 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void) > > > if (!cpu_has_vmx_flexpriority()) > > > flexpriority_enabled = 0; > > > > > > + if (cpu_has_vmx_ept_spp() && enable_ept && > > > + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPP)) > > > + spp_supported = 1; > > > > Don't cpu_has_vmx_ept_spp() and boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPP) test > > exactly the same thing? > > More or less. I'm about to hit 'send' on a series to eliminate the > synthetic VMX features flags. If that goes through, the X86_FEATURE_SPP > flag can also go away. Thank you, these two are synonyms. I'll remove one next time.
