Oh, sorry On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 16:10, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 05:45, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > index 17b6590748c0..f9b832e971c5 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ > > #define X86_FEATURE_CLZERO (13*32+ 0) /* "clzero" CLZERO instruction */ > > #define X86_FEATURE_IRPERF (13*32+ 1) /* "irperf" Instructions Retired Count */ > > #define X86_FEATURE_XSAVEERPTR (13*32+ 2) /* "xsaveerptr" Always save/restore FP error pointers */ > > +#define X86_FEATURE_INVLPGB (13*32+ 3) /* INVLPGB and TLBSYNC instruction supported. */ > > Why no "invlpgb" here? Seems like having this flag visible in cpuinfo > would be worthwhile. > > If there's a reason to hide it maybe add a comment to explain the > reason? Sorry if this is a stupid question - I also can't see an > obvious rationale for why existing flags do or don't get a name at > runtime. Oh, found it: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250102120450.GNZ3aA4oVPnoJYRVUL@fat_crate.local/ Sorry for the noise, please ignore.
