lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > > + u32 min_ucode;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +const struct x86_ucode_id *x86_match_ucode(const struct x86_ucode_id *match)
> >
> > What's the point of returning the struct pointer? Shouldn't it be enough to
> > make it return bool? Also the function name really should reflect that this
> > checks whether the minimal required microcode revision is active.
>
> This allows the user to find the table entry to tie something to it
> (e.g. use the index to match some other table)
>
> Same pattern as pci discovery etc. use.
>
> Given the current caller doesn't need it, but we still follow standard
> conventions.

There is no point to return the pointer because it's not a compound
structure. If you want to provide the possibility to use the index then
return the index and an error code if it does not match.

> >
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
> > > + const struct x86_ucode_id *m;
> > > +
> > > + for (m = match; m->vendor | m->family | m->model; m++) {
> >
> > VENDOR_INTEL = 0, so this check is obscure to begin with. Either you chose
> > a explicit condition to put at the end of the table, e.g. vendor = U8_MAX
> > or you hand in the array size to the function.
>
> That would both be awkward. It's the same as match_cpu, and 0 terminators
> are standard practice in practical all similar code. I removed
> the or with the family.

That's debatable because it's more easy to miss the terminator than getting
the ARRAY_SIZE() argument wrong. But it doesn't matter much.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-20 10:21    [W:0.090 / U:4.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site