Tim,
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 11/03/2018 11:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> case X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2:
> >> return sprintf(buf, "%s%s%s%s%s%s\n",
> >> spectre_v2_strings[spectre_v2_enabled],
> >> - boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_USE_IBPB) ? ", IBPB" :
> >> "",
> >> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_USE_IBRS_FW) ? ",
> >> IBRS_FW" : "",
> >> - (x86_spec_ctrl_base & SPEC_CTRL_STIBP) ? ",
> >> STIBP" : "",
> >> + ibpb_state(), stibp_state(),
> >> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RSB_CTXSW) ? ", RSB
> >> filling" : "",
> >> spectre_v2_module_string());
> >
> > Any particular reason for changing the output ordering here? If yes, then
> > the changelog should mention it. If no, why?
> >
> I was putting the features related to user application protection together. It
> was not necessary and I can leave it at the same place.
I have no strong opinion either way and changing it should not confuse user
space tools, but please mention it in the changelog if you decide to group it.
Thanks,
tglx
