On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:28:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Separate would be better, it makes sense and is one problem less to worry
> about?
Something like so then? I'm not entirely sure which commit wants to fo
in Fixes, I picked the earlier one, but it could equally have been:
Fixes: f208820a321f ("Revert "x86/speculation: Simplify
indirect_branch_prediction_barrier()"")
---
Subject: x86/speculation: Add msr-index.h
From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:41:32 +0100
Joe Konno reported a compile failure resulting from using an MSR
without inclusion of msr-index.h, and while the current code builds
fine (by accident) this needs fixing for future patches.
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Fixes: 20ffa1caecca ("x86/speculation: Add basic IBPB (Indirect Branch
Prediction Barrier) support")
Reported-by: Joe Konno <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <asm/alternative.h>
#include <asm/alternative-asm.h>
#include <asm/cpufeatures.h>
+#include <asm/msr-index.h>
#ifdef __ASSEMBLY__
