From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B7A3858002
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:30:01 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B2B7A3858002
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=1wt.eu
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=w@1wt.eu
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 <w@1wt.eu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
 "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-abi@vger.kernel.org,
 "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
 Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>,
 Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related
 features
Message-ID: <20210415052938.GA2325@1wt.eu>
References: <CALCETrW2QHa2TLvnUuVxAAheqcbSZ-5_WRXtDSAGcbG8N+gtdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lf9nk2ku.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <CALCETrWxJzf-rm9rqMpdxEtdVe+0OH7XRtWV=UzrgBDiPT=vVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvTdKkAzEeAKrEYMU-gBWXoNGyJ09ZGw1gsU0b3uCuo8vrX0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210413034346.GA22861@1wt.eu>
 <CAJvTdKmLth==ZPv7ygLs0jFX7JRPVhVT82ZDoT4xcQRABEVTvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210414095804.GB10709@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdKn_y8qAjDy189zEf8cnaWrvW3baca=z9FgGxV9AvQEADg@mail.gmail.com>
 <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)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS,
 SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:30:03 -0000

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