On 05/21/2018 02:56 PM, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2018, speck for Jon Masters wrote:
>> One of the problems does seem to be that we didn't have a dedicated list
>> for v4 earlier. I think it's important to tackle that next time around.
> 
> Crap. What's important is that _WE_ can decide and act on our own without
> having to ask Intel about every fart.

Sure. My point is Intel didn't own v4. GPZ own that one. Intel just took
point in doing disclosures to various folks once again. I actually
consider what they are trying to do to be quite noble in intention, but
(as I have said to Intel's execs with all due intended respect) it's not
their place to do this for the whole industry. And it's important to
understand the separation between v4 and any other past/future issue.

This is why we need a better framework (and some folks are working on
something) for joint industry issues that removes single vendors from
owning architectural embargoes that impact multiple others.

Jon.

-- 
Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop