Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:29:02 +0200 | From | "Robert Richter" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/8] 2.6.22-rc3 perfmon2 : Barcelona CPU detection |
| |
On 20.06.07 12:45:35, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Robert Richter wrote: > > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/arch/x86_64/perfmon/perfmon_k8.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc3.orig/arch/x86_64/perfmon/perfmon_k8.c > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/arch/x86_64/perfmon/perfmon_k8.c > > @@ -307,7 +307,12 @@ static int pfm_k8_probe_pmu(void) > > return -1; > > } > > > > - if (current_cpu_data.x86 != 15) { > > + switch (current_cpu_data.x86) { > > + case 15: > > + case 16: > > + PFM_INFO("found family=%d", current_cpu_data.x86); > > + break; > > + default: > > PFM_INFO("unsupported family=%d", current_cpu_data.x86); > > return -1; > > } > > This still shouldn't be a switch clause because you're hiding the return > -1; in the default label. I think it would be better to write: > > if (current_cpu_data.x86 == 15 || current_cpu_data.x86 == 16) > PFM_INFO("found family=%d", current_cpu_data.x86); > else { > PFM_INFO("unsupported family=%d", current_cpu_data.x86); > return -1; > } > >
With the next CPU family the if condition would be too long while adding another case statement is more readable. Anyway, things always have 2 sides and I understand your concerns.
-Robert
-- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center email: robert.richter@amd.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |