Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Nov 10 2015 - 07:30:14 EST

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() anyway. Kill
> the least used and unused ones.

So cpufeature.h doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the difference is
between all these variants:


it has this comment:

* Static testing of CPU features. Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
* These are only valid after alternatives have run, but will statically
* patch the target code for additional performance.

The second sentence does not parse. Why does the third sentence have a 'but' for
listing properties? It's either bad grammer or tries to tell something that isn't
being told properly.

It's entirely silent on the difference between static_cpu_has() and
static_cpu_has_safe() - what makes the second one 'safe'?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at