From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F588C433B4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD91D61154 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229922AbhDOFab (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:30:31 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:51640 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229560AbhDOFa2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:30:28 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 13F5Tc78002350; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:29:38 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:29:38 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Len Brown , Andy Lutomirski , Florian Weimer , "Bae, Chang Seok" , Dave Hansen , X86 ML , LKML , linux-abi@vger.kernel.org, "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , Rich Felker , Kyle Huey , Keno Fischer Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features Message-ID: <20210415052938.GA2325@1wt.eu> References: <87lf9nk2ku.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20210413034346.GA22861@1wt.eu> <20210414095804.GB10709@zn.tnic> <20210415044258.GA6318@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210415044258.GA6318@zn.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:43:43AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:57:22PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that the "it isn't my use case of interest, so it > > doesn't matter" line of reasoning has long been established as -EINVAL > > ;-) > > I have only a very faint idea what you're trying to say here. Please > explain properly and more verbosely what exactly has been established > where? What Len is saying is that not being interested in a feature is not an argument for rejecting its adoption, which I'm perfectly fine with. But conversely not being interested in a feature is also an argument for insisting that its adoption doesn't harm other use cases (generally speaking, not this specific case here). Willy