[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] TAAv7 4

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:16:14PM -0700, speck for Luck, Tony wrote:
> It might have been Linus that objected to "taa" (but I can't
> recall if it was for the sysfs file name, or the boot argument)
> 
> Rationale was that in a couple of years time nobody will
> remember what "taa" stands for.

Oh, I know that. That's why we have spec_store_bypass_disable
and not ssbd. Well, we had ssbd and actually, we should have
spec_store_bypass=(disable|enable|...) if we have to be strict but I
digress...

My point is that it would be helpful if those things were called
differently.

Or, a completely different idea: I wonder if we could merge the two
options like we do for l1tf= for example where we have

	l1tf=<opt1>,<opt2>

and then do:

	tsx=on,async_abort_full
	tsx=on,async_abort_full,nosmt
	tsx=off

That should even diminish the number of combinations because once you've
supplied "tsx=off" for example, async_abort doesn't matter.

So you only get to deal with the "=on" case and all the possibilities
coming with it.

It sure will simplify the code even further, methinks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
--