On 09.01.2026 12:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/01/2026 11:43 am, Kevin Lampis wrote:
>> A return value is missing from this function leading to safe CPUs being
>> marked as vulnerable.
>
> It's not really a return value that's missing. It's just that the Atom
> block used to fall through into the Phi block to get to it's return
> false, and this was accidentally dropped with the Phi removal.
> Fixes: 85191cf32180 ("x86: drop Xeon Phi support")
Hmm, I indeed screwed up there. However, the fact that there were two
blocks of case labels with a blank line between them made them visually
non-fall-through. Hence why I keep asking that blank lines only be
inserted for non-fall-through situations. In the case here the comments
would already have served as sufficient separation of the two groups.
Jan
