Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 May 2020 15:44:45 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: Add "or" to mitigations for multiple errata |
| |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:19PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:12 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Several actions are not mitigations for a single erratum, but for > > > multiple errata. However, printing a line like > > > > > > CPU features: detected: ARM errata 1165522, 1319367, 1530923 > > > > > > may give the false impression that all three listed errata have been > > > detected. This can confuse the user, who may think his Cortex-A57 is > > > suddenly affected by Cortex-A76 and Cortex-A55 errata. > > > > > > Add "or" to all descriptions for mitigations for multiple errata, to > > > make it clear that only one or more of the errata printed are > > > applicable, and not necessarily all of them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > This seems to conflict with the other patch you sent to reorder the entries. > > My reordering applied to the Kconfig file.
Sorry, you're right. Your patch didn't apply on top of that, so I wrongly assumed that it was the culprit.
> > Please can you send another version, based on the arm64 for-next/kconfig > > branch? > > Then it will conflict with commit 02ab1f5018c3ad0b ("arm64: Unify > WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE}") from for-next/kvm/errata?
Ah, that's ok. I recreate for-next/core so I have flexibility in dropping branches if they cause problems. Please can you send a version against for-next/kconfig, and I'll handle the conflict now that you've pointed it out/
Cheers,
Will
| |