On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 02:04:24PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> nit: Why use cpu_feature_enabled VS say boot_cpu_has since none of the 3
> features are defined in cpufeaturemasks.h, meaning that cpu_feature_enabled
> is essentially static_cpu_has, given that this is not a fast path?
>
> It's not wrong per-se but I think the cpu_feature_enabled api is somewhat of
> a trainwreck i.e we ought to have a version that uses boot_cpu_has for
> "ordinary uses" and probably cpu_feature_enabled_fast for fastpaths.
Look at the resulting asm of *cpu_has().
And, we need exactly one interface that everyone should use and everyone
should not care about what it does underneath. Not 10 interfaces as it is now.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
