On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 19:15:58 -0700 Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Checking both boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX*) and cpu_has_xfeatures() has > never really been needed in practice, and it's never been universally > done (e.g., lib/raid/ omits cpu_has_xfeatures()). Nevertheless, both > x86 and UML now explicitly clear the AVX and AVX-512 flags if their > xfeatures are missing, which should remove any remaining doubts. > > Thus, remove all the calls to cpu_has_xfeatures(), as well as the > related checks of boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSXSAVE). > > In a few cases there was no corresponding boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX*) > check, so add the missing ones. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <[email protected]> > --- ... > --- a/arch/x86/crypto/aria_gfni_avx512_glue.c > +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/aria_gfni_avx512_glue.c > @@ -196,24 +196,15 @@ static struct skcipher_alg aria_algs[] = { > > static int __init aria_avx512_init(void) > { > - const char *feature_name; > - > if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX) || > !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX2) || Doesn't AVX2 require AVX support? > !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX512F) || > !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AVX512VL) || And (less sure) AVX512xxx require AVX2? So the extra checks could be reduced. David > - !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_GFNI) || > - !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSXSAVE)) { > + !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_GFNI)) {
