On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 03:04:17 +0000,
Rongwei Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now, it is unsuitable for both ARMv8 and ARMv9 to show a
> fixed string "CPU architecture: 8" in /proc/cpuinfo.
Please read the various threads that have been going on over the past
10+ years about *why* we don't allow this sort of change (TL;DR: it
breaks userspace, and we don't do that).
Also, there is no material difference between v8 and v9 that would be
observable from userspace outside of the "Features:" line. And if that
doesn't convince you, just think of '8' as the number of bytes used by
a virtual address. You can't make that a '9'. Yet.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On 3/7/22 4:45 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 03:04:17 +0000,
> Rongwei Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Now, it is unsuitable for both ARMv8 and ARMv9 to show a
>> fixed string "CPU architecture: 8" in /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> Please read the various threads that have been going on over the past
> 10+ years about *why* we don't allow this sort of change (TL;DR: it
> breaks userspace, and we don't do that).
>
> Also, there is no material difference between v8 and v9 that would be
> observable from userspace outside of the "Features:" line. And if that
> doesn't convince you, just think of '8' as the number of bytes used byI got your point. It seems that we can regard '8' as the number of
bytes. But what make me do this is that 'CPU architecture: 8' is
confusing, especially those responsible for testing.
And I believe that most people regard this '8' as ARMv8, maybe not.
In fact, I'm not sure it has potential ABI implications, so seek your
advice.
Thanks!
> a virtual address. You can't make that a '9'. Yet.
>
> M.
>