On 10/31/2024 3:34 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > cpu_feature_enabled() should be used in most cases when CPU feature > support needs to be tested in code. Document that. > > Reported-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 18 ++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > Looks good (a minor nit below), Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@xxxxxxxxx> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > index 0b9611da6c53..de1ad09fe8d7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > @@ -132,11 +132,12 @@ extern const char * const x86_bug_flags[NBUGINTS*32]; > x86_this_cpu_test_bit(bit, cpu_info.x86_capability)) > > /* > - * This macro is for detection of features which need kernel > - * infrastructure to be used. It may *not* directly test the CPU > - * itself. Use the cpu_has() family if you want true runtime > - * testing of CPU features, like in hypervisor code where you are > - * supporting a possible guest feature where host support for it > + * This is the default CPU features testing macro to use in code. > + * Does "default CPU feature testing macro" roll better than "default CPU features testing macro"? > + * It is for detection of features which need kernel infrastructure to be > + * used. It may *not* directly test the CPU itself. Use the cpu_has() family > + * if you want true runtime testing of CPU features, like in hypervisor code > + * where you are supporting a possible guest feature where host support for it > * is not relevant. > */
