On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: > Yeah, see what you mean. I think we also need to define if we want to > expose all the ISA extensions in /proc/cpuinfo (ie no matter the config > of the kernel) or not. If so, additional validate() callback would make > sense. If we want to keep the full ISA string in /proc/info, then we > will need another way of doing so. If extensions aren't usable, they shouldn't be in /proc/cpuinfo either as there's programs that parse that to figure out what they can use, possibly even only checking a single cpu and using that as gospel. That's why there's that per-hart-isa thing that was added by one of your colleagues last year.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
