On 22.04.2024 15:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 08:25:00AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 18.04.2024 17:52, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h >>> @@ -235,9 +235,6 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_has(unsigned int feat) >>> #define cpu_bug_fpu_ptrs boot_cpu_has(X86_BUG_FPU_PTRS) >>> #define cpu_bug_null_seg boot_cpu_has(X86_BUG_NULL_SEG) >>> >>> -#define cpu_has_bhb_seq (boot_cpu_has(X86_SPEC_BHB_TSX) || \ >>> - boot_cpu_has(X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS)) >> >> Might be worth also mentioning in the description that this construct was >> lacking use of X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS_LONG (might even warrant a 2nd Fixes: >> tag). > > Heh, no, X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS_LONG is added in addition to > X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS. When using long loops we have both > X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS and X86_SPEC_BHB_LOOPS_LONG set (I know it's > confusing, I was also confused the first time and asked Andrew the > same question). See the fallthrough in bhi_calculations().
Oh, I see. Andrew: This is a very good example of the separating blank line being misleading when fall-through is intended. Jan
