Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-182515-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 20:28:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	patches@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
 X86_VENDOR_INTEL
Message-ID: <20240517182856.GHZkeh6DOiNa-23-EW@fat_crate.local>
References: <20240517172134.7255-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20240517173811.GFZkeWAzKjYtEMwe1e@fat_crate.local>
 <EEEDDDD9-3514-4246-B506-6A1DBD5CF794@zytor.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EEEDDDD9-3514-4246-B506-6A1DBD5CF794@zytor.com>

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:46:29AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Thought: why don't we add VENDOR and CPUID as synthetic CPU feature flags as well? Not saying it necessarily solves this specific problem but it might make some other code more uniform. 
> 
> Obviously on x86-64 CPUID is baseline; VENDOR might not be known, however.

Well, there's only a handful of X86_VENDOR_UNKNOWN usages in the kernel
so meh. Or do you mean something else?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette