From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 26 Feb 2020 18:13:39 -0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1j71Bi-00040S-28 for speck@linutronix.de; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:13:38 +0100 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7969EAC26 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:13:25 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] v2: more sampling fun 2 Message-ID: <20200226181325.GE17448@zn.tnic> References: <20200226114641.GC17448@zn.tnic> <20200226173508.GB114268@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200226173508.GB114268@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:35:08AM -0800, speck for mark gross wrote: > > This "We" sounds like you mean Intel...? > yes, this instance of "we" is an intel statement from that white paper I'm > waiting on for the documentation patch. See how "we" means different things and how you should avoid it in commit messages? IOW, pls use passive voice. > I wrote it this way initially because at the time I expected there to be mo= re > dynamic support for managing this mitigation WRT post boot changes to TSX > availability. The expectation I was later given was to make it a boot > commandline control only. I kept it this way mostly out of laziness and > simplification of the number of mitigation states to track. Drop it then. > srb_sampling is no more readable to me and doesn't convay what the > command line is for. But, more readable is always better. Ok, let's see what better suggestions/preferences the others might have. > Perhaps changing into a single value, with any '=3D' like: > disable_srbs_mitigation or srbds_mitigation_off would be better? You don't need to have "disable" or "off" in the actual command line switch's name if you give it the on/off after the "=3D". And as I said already, you don't need to have a tautology by putting "mitigation" in the mitigation option - it is a mitigation. --=20 Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, HRB 36809, = AG N=C3=BCrnberg --=20