Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:35:26 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pjt@google.com, evn@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com, kim.phillips@amd.com,
        alexandre.chartre@oracle.com, daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com,
        =?utf-8?B?Sm9zw6k=?= Oliveira <joseloliveira11@gmail.com>,
        Rodrigo Branco <rodrigo@kernelhacking.com>,
        Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Allow STIBP with IBRS
Message-ID: <20230220193526.if5zfd6j7sbjpf7g@treble>
References: <CACYkzJ5L9MLuE5Jz+z5-NJCCrUqTbgKQkXSqnQnCfTD_WNA7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACYkzJ6n=-tobhX0ONQhjHSgmnNjWnNe_dZnEOGtD8Y6S3RHbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230220163442.7fmaeef3oqci4ee3@treble>
 <Y/Ox3MJZF1Yb7b6y@zn.tnic>
 <20230220175929.2laflfb2met6y3kc@treble>
 <CACYkzJ71xqzY6-wL+YShcL+d6ugzcdFHr6tbYWWE_ep52+RBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230220182717.uzrym2gtavlbjbxo@treble>
 <Y/O9U4KFtXE8Yoyt@zn.tnic>
 <20230220190908.gfd2c4tuzeb7cft6@treble>
 <CACYkzJ58HoDz+hpLzWf0PZQX7ykWqB6-uQR9HVb5YqaF-rdScA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACYkzJ58HoDz+hpLzWf0PZQX7ykWqB6-uQR9HVb5YqaF-rdScA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:45AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, that document was never updated to describe
> > spectre_v2=ibrs in the first place.  That would be a whole 'nother patch
> > which I'm not volunteering for.  Nice try ;-)
> 
> This should at least be documented in the code.
> 
> Now it seems like it is not okay to work with people on the list and
> just send revisions bypassing them. This is not something we do in the
> kernel area I come from (an x86 favorite ;)).  Please feel free to go
> with Josh's version (or its future revisions). If you want me to
> re-spin with some comments, happy to. If not, please do at least give
> me Reported-by here.

It's a common practice even outside of x86.  I'd recommend not taking it
personally.  In the end it's all about what produces better code.

And please don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes it takes a bad
patch to inspire a better one.  I mean that with no disrespect, I myself
have sent many bad patches.

And if you don't like my patch, fine, send a v2...

-- 
Josh