On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:35:17AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 02:57 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> > @@ -339,6 +339,12 @@ extern const char * const x86_power_flags[32];
> >> > #define cpu_has_eager_fpu boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_EAGER_FPU)
> >> > #define cpu_has_topoext boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT)
> >> >
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MPX
> >> > +#define cpu_has_mpx boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MPX)
> > I think we don't want those macros anymore because they're obfuscating
> > the code. You should use static_cpu_has instead.
>
> It looks like static_cpu_has() is the right thing to use instead of
> boot_cpu_has(). But, this doesn't just obfuscate things.
>
> We actually _want_ the compiler to cull code out when the config option
> is off. Things like do_bounds() will see code savings with _some_ kind
> of #ifdef rather than using static_cpu_has().
Why?
Practically, distros will have it enabled anyway (you have X86_INTEL_MPX
depend on CPU_SUP_INTEL).
Are you talking about the miniscule percentage of people building their
own kernels?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
