On 19/11/2020 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 19/11/2020 16:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.11.2020 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 19/11/2020 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Found by looking for patterns similar to the one Julien did spot in >>>> pci_vtd_quirks(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >>> Subject is wonky. Is it P4 (Intel), or Fam15 (AMD) ? I'd be tempted to >>> have the prefix as x86/nmi: either way. >> With this code: >> >> case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: >> switch (boot_cpu_data.x86) { >> case 6: >> setup_p6_watchdog((boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 14) >> ? P6_EVENT_CPU_CLOCKS_NOT_HALTED >> : CORE_EVENT_CPU_CLOCKS_NOT_HALTED); >> break; >> case 15: >> if (!setup_p4_watchdog()) >> >> I think qualifying it like I did is quite reasonable. Hence ... >> >>> With that suitably adjusted, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper >>> <[email protected]> >> ... I'd prefer to keep it as is - please clarify. > Oh - original Xeon's. I'd honestly forgotten that quirk of history. > > I'd recommend "x86/nmi: Avoid UB in for P4-era watchdogs" to avoid the > ambiguity altogether.
And if I could actually english, that would read "Avoid UB for P4-". ~Andrew
