From 362f924b64ba0f4be2ee0cb697690c33d40be721 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Borislav Petkov Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 10:39:41 +0100 Subject: x86/cpufeature: Remove unused and seldomly used cpu_has_xx macros Those are stupid and code should use static_cpu_has_safe() or boot_cpu_has() instead. Kill the least used and unused ones. The remaining ones need more careful inspection before a conversion can happen. On the TODO. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1449481182-27541-4-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de Cc: David Sterba Cc: Herbert Xu Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Mackall Cc: Chris Mason Cc: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner --- arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c') diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c index 50a3fad5b89f..2bcfb5f2bc44 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c @@ -300,6 +300,10 @@ static int arch_build_bp_info(struct perf_event *bp) return -EINVAL; if (bp->attr.bp_addr & (bp->attr.bp_len - 1)) return -EINVAL; + + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BPEXT)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + /* * It's impossible to use a range breakpoint to fake out * user vs kernel detection because bp_len - 1 can't @@ -307,8 +311,6 @@ static int arch_build_bp_info(struct perf_event *bp) * breakpoints, then we'll have to check for kprobe-blacklisted * addresses anywhere in the range. */ - if (!cpu_has_bpext) - return -EOPNOTSUPP; info->mask = bp->attr.bp_len - 1; info->len = X86_BREAKPOINT_LEN_1; } -- cgit v1.2.3