[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] x86/cet: Support cet=<bool> on the command line
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:09:26 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=v4aGH0LY7DSQXbQ4BBcNhOcB0d8ZThMhBieDrvBzbmI=; b=jjebge+MZtres0tXQu+NQQ1wEwAFWNPFQtJsMj/7hs2KP0Yy1W93CtuHceTNxKq3/xqFqfR62KLkRL9rVGfDn0lRVna46lbJNMinFqIHUpB5E67xaYqGILDUlR45DFuYVUO6ZeZHNcrq7rbOKPKpr/FotGPFGpuHwX1OIL8zd4OWf+1CIm4+83TXyAyNyStGHYDwQKCJ8jLI8wXF/kUY1PsOCGOZe3stGgWRnIxyWXorgTAhA7G+xmB9smujzCgo+ZkrvqwT1njuMk8OdOn7VwrQN5z3uXiG438LU4tAL4jQZvnZyyZErFOtR/fLowix1779DsezHeRA8U6YYxnnxw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SfQxH6pEdWSYqxMJOQnXqUr2g6ojscb8btb+cOxjaNrRRc6B9hvJqWafXI8hVeJeejaYdKyoRRH6ZgG/Rl0Ne+MCrzi7giu2YngrMnZo+//ZZoFxdChL/a2OI7RoyaqgC8z3l582YD4h6gRScATS/fttUSD7D42zj0ZsLoWf/JkKVQrBchZd/S81Q3hOX587AMxki+pAJN1Dc1/6kSvrtGCyec8vG6XxrKOr57eTgzcsZ48cANBT5pBy23zIXWpTeULCyjkhzx0S0XbTHsjn5UUBE3zJprDoTTF1WssB2RblA3EYmnVK4Mt2L625LfkI7DuVfFxHoo2YmdubI/MB/Q==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:09:35 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:gvE706A7sD9ZtBVW/1riw5YqxClBgxIJ4kV8jS/XYbTApDkhgzwOm jcWWTrUOP2PYTfzeo1/Yd+0/RkDvpDSyNM3QQY4rX1jcSlH+JHPbTi7wuYcHM8wwunrFh8PA xA2M4GYRCwMZiaA4E/raNANlFEkvU2ybuOU5NXsZ2YgHGeIdA970Ug5w7Jj09Yy6TSEK1jlV e3a8pW31GCNg1aYAkpMg05UgEoy1BhakGpwUm0WPZinjneH/5UmJMt3yZWKB2n5WuFp8tuSH I4v+l0bElTxpH/BAvv9+lryn9ZjrrT6ZWBigVIOM0Sub4QrSoXfHc/XOdJFAXq7hQllkPhcz 8pmibeWTz4HJ4bivqcBDxJgOnBHaPguFL/veRBTsOS15mifKT7A5qsrC0s7e4oF5uxwHGdCs +QCLywAZQyCgOTwx6+nTu5rhYIoK8yD0IE34yk8i22GS6t3B8mdE80m5vcBtNs0rulIEezTe Iwybj13YQ6bSxZOJk0WGNQ1m+LAanzXLGUC9ArP/PZfD2779AJAz7ayFNrpJfuRaMlwp0yG/ m/G4DGsav0dHJnFodafyVqujOLSmSLwWKoJCaa1sPVthTW72Wg7GBAQE1yhrpGRmkO4Ht5SN UEQ0i4vtrQpslymSMHnWB+1q2LCuQQTM+e8CMU/4QCJj6bRvQCQAzFeSiYbMYJ28sgrWTYty 1mF2cvzAiBiu6GUTnTb8aqIqTS1Om4eKmpqiTI4cDbpKuLL+Okb5i8jhP45eEJpprUZwQ3N/ g0=
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:+1so76sl9nQylxJyTuQMR4bl7skCJoAji2hC6mlwRA09TyXGra 2TdaUgvyMc1gx7ZJh5o6H6BEGBKUmslqKceeEqTPiftXrdyRGVxeZZnMXfKlzbamHDH4tmuZ uIHJIOb+EYYWIasS++2njBLz9C+qjHzEnLv5a5854Fd2gDBM9dBkVCe3+m+yZNNWt77O8CZf 6hD7181l+dkBosDviTNz0gZazuttfLnJXpbVotHBg88jSDijuu9frTDwWY9g12aUIN/Z4StU z+1yDp7KSqtP+2jjXG0XXI0phQkNz9jvNeGc23jNQPIDmEsHfrWG0hYczGgNkGmpDp1L8Yqq iLn/7mBbUr15rlRBDwnfIq4Xi57N9h0Q649bbSuwqfnSWwfkNHNyMGv/MYTvKR0TtfgDk3up g7oF6xpt5ZCwjNkz/64MWNXxZ2llCsqX5niuILiWdDOLFuI4O5gLZvtX+9Kq1wVB4SKbpXZd VGHYXZ/rJbYFmaZ3fWsi1mx8GtRG06GlODTlIZssKY3jBKlDQhpnFoifA3jzMF7tYwWpNE7+ PLPuBhk6xPVNYfaeZ4CP0aScW6B2TRSVbHMX6UI17gCKYbUki94aLf8fEw/qWnaZYIxJw9lN DIV05Zr3c7fwb0BciHzPRwg2bwqCnXZ0We9iif3ekPhlTRfsuaDcTYciFeryKJmYRtPuTLH/ CuJZlRH/jvaWPzBIch5XyLZ6Vv
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Thread-index: AQHYWt1N9h0ywB7VLke90Ph7I2J/jK0FG36AgAGRL4A=
- Thread-topic: [PATCH] x86/cet: Support cet=<bool> on the command line
On 28/04/2022 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.04.2022 10:52, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> @@ -283,6 +283,8 @@ CET is incompatible with 32bit PV guests. If any CET
>> sub-options are active,
>> they will override the `pv=32` boolean to `false`. Backwards compatibility
>> can be maintained with the pv-shim mechanism.
>>
>> +* An unqualified boolean is shorthand for setting all suboptions at once.
> You're the native speaker, but I wonder whether there an "a" missing
> before "shorthand".
I was going to say it was correct as is, but it turn out both are
acceptable. "shorthand" is both a countable and uncountable quantity,
and both "sound" right.
~Andrew
|
