On 19.01.21 13:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:35:42PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> In fact this should rather be named "X86_FEATURE_TRUE", as this is its
>> semantics.
>>
>> And I think I can define it to the value 0xffff instead of using a
>> "real" bit for it.
> 
> A real bit is cheap - a special value to pay attention to in the future
> not so much. Also we do have X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS already which has a
> similar purpose...
> 

Oh, well hidden. :-)

I'll use that one.


Juergen