On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:55:52PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > To be fair, this is the third time we've got conflicting, direct feedback on > this exact issue. I do agree that it doesn't make sense to burn a whole word > for just two features, I guess I just feel like whining. > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20180828102140.GA31102@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/20190924162520.GJ19317@xxxxxxx/ Well, sorry that I confused you guys but in hindsight we probably should have stopped you right then and there from imposing kvm requirements on the machinery behind *_cpu_has() and kvm should have been a regular user of those interfaces like the rest of the kernel code - nothing more. And if you'd like to do your own X86_FEATURE_* querying but then extend it with its own functionality, then that should have been decoupled. And I will look at your patch later when brain is actually awake but I strongly feel that in order to avoid such situations in the future, *_cpu_has() internal functionality should be separate from kvm's respective CPUID leafs representation. For obvious reasons. And if there should be some partial sharing - if that makes sense at all - then that should be first agreed upon. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
