On 01/21/16 11:39, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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. >
Replace the old static_cpu_has() with safe variant
-hpa
