On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> But for bugs, they all have a name. I was thinking that this was
> because they are defined by the kernel, that's what I meant by "It t
> doesn't make sense for a bug not to have a name", although now I think
> about it we could totally have a bug and not give it a user-visible
> name if we wanted to.
Right.
> Anyway, still think the current logic is what we want here:
>
> - The new setcpuid should be consistent with the existing clearcpuid,
> i.e. accept numbers for the same things clearcpuid does.
>
> - There are currently no bugs without names so for those, require the
> string for both setcpuid and clearcpuid. If we wanted to we could add
> number support later.
Right, let's not make this more than it is - a hacky interface for hacks - not
to be used in production anyway. :-)
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
