Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/cpuid: refactor setup_clear_cpu_cap/clear_feature | From | Maxim Levitsky <> | Date | Wed, 22 Jun 2022 18:59:06 +0300 |
| |
On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 08:07 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 6/22/22 07:48, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Simplify the code a bit by always passing &boot_cpu_data > > in case the setup_clear_cpu_cap was called. > > > > Also unify clear_cpu_cap and do_clear_cpu_cap. > > Please always add a "()" suffix to functions. "foo" is a variable, but > "foo()" is a function. Will do next time!
> > I also really like when a changelog has a clear problem statement. I > _think_ the problem here is something along the lines of the 'c' > argument to clear_feature() having different behavior when it is NULL > versus '&boot_cpu_data'.
To be honest I didn't try to fix any problem here, I just wanted to simplify clear_feature() a bit by avoiding a recursive call to clear_cpu_cap.
> > Basically, there's no reason to support clearing a bit in > '&boot_cpu_data' without also setting that bit in 'cpu_caps_cleared'.
> > { > > - do_clear_cpu_cap(NULL, feature); > > + clear_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, feature); > > }
I'll try to think about a better changelog message for this.
Thank you! Best regards, Maxim Levitsky
| |