On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Looks good except for the subject line -- you didn't actually remove > static_cpu_has :)
Yeah, a proper explanation didn't fit in the commit name line. So I did:
"x86/cpufeature: Remove the old unsafe static_cpu_has()
... and rename the safe one to static_cpu_has(), thereby making the safe
variant the default.
..."
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
