On 5/11/20 6:44 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/11/20 4:32 PM, Babu Moger wrote: >> AMD's next generation of EPYC processors support the MPK (Memory >> Protection Keys) feature. >> >> So, rename X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS to X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS. >> >> No functional changes. >> >> AMD documentation for MPK feature is available at "AMD64 Architecture >> Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming, Pub. 24593 Rev. 3.34, >> Section 5.6.6 Memory Protection Keys (MPK) Bit". Documentation can be >> obtained at the link below. I will remove this text. This is not too relevant here. > > I was hoping to see at least *some* justification in this changelog. Do > you think having "INTEL_" will confuse users? Is there some technical > merit to this change? > > The naming churn is an obviously bad, not technically necessary change. Yes. Technically not necessary. But can cause some confusion on non-intel platforms. > >> +config X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS >> + # Note: This is an intermediate change to avoid config prompt to >> + # the users. Eventually, the option X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS >> + # should be changed to X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS permanently after >> + # few kernel revisions. >> + def_bool X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > > "after a few kernel revisions" is code for "never". :) > > Could we put an explicit date on this, please? One year seems roughly > right. Or, maybe "after the v5.10" release, so that this will approach > will make into at least one LTS kernel. > > Maybe: > > # Set the "INTEL_"-free option whenever the "INTEL_" one is set. > # The "INTEL_" one should be removed and replaced by this option after > # 5.10. This avoids exposing most 'oldconfig' users to this churn. > Yes, this should work.
