On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 04:42:57PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Why? This is rarely run code, won't cpu_feature_enabled() > > unnecessarily require patching? > > Because we want one single interface to test X86_FEATURE flags. And > there's no need for the users to know whether it wants patching or not - > we simply patch *everywhere* and that's it. > > > And while we're on the topic... https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y22IzA9DN%2FxYWgWN@xxxxxxxxxx > > Because static_ or boot_ is not relevant to the user - all she > wants to know is whether a cpu feature has been enabled. Thus > cpu_feature_enabled(). > > And yes, at the time I protested a little about unnecessary patching. > And tglx said "Why not?". And I had no good answer to that. So we can > just as well patch *everywhere*. Ah, I missed that memo. Paolo, Since it sounds like static_cpu_has() is going the way of the dodo, and ditto for boot_cpu_has() except for flows that don't play nice with patching (none of which are in KVM), should we do a KVM-wide conversion to cpu_feature_enabled() at some point in the near future?
