On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:01:36PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > >> Thinking about this more, we can shave off the first 4 chars and have it > > >> be: > > >> > > >> spec_mitigations= > > >> > > >> I think it is painfully clear which speculation mitigations we mean. And > > >> the other switches don't have "cpu_" prefixes too so... > > > > > > Sure, I'm ok with renaming it to that, if there are no objections. > > > > What about when we have a mitigation for a non-speculation related bug :) > > Those kind of silicon bugs are usually mitigated unconditionally. Right. But at least "mitigations=" is nice and short. We could clarify in the documentation that it doesn't apply to *all* mitigations, only the ones which are optional and which can affect performance. And it would give us the freedom to include any future "optional" mitigations, spec or not. I kind of like it. But I could go either way. -- Josh
