On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Now about the late microcode my preference is not for static_cpu_has > and forcing the early microcode, but my long term preference is to > start with this/boot_cpu_has() and then turn static_cpu_has in a true > static key so that setup_force_cpu_cap shall also flip the static key > for all static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB_SUPPORT) also if run any time > after boot and not only if run before the static_cpu_has alternative > is patched in.
Fair enough. We can avoid the static_cpu_has() to begin with and fix it later. Thanks, tglx