Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:35:33 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails | From | Dave Hansen <> |
| |
On 1/9/23 07:35, Ashok Raj wrote: > -static void print_ucode(int old_rev, int new_rev, int date) > +static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, int new_rev, int date) ... > if (rev != mc->hdr.rev) > - return -1; > + retval = -1; > > uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev; > > if (early) > - print_ucode(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date); > + print_ucode(retval, old_rev, mc->hdr.rev, mc->hdr.date); > else > - print_ucode_info(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date); > + print_ucode_info(retval, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date); > > - return 0; > + return retval; > }
I'm generally not a _huge_ fan of having an 'int' implicitly cast to a bool. The:
print_ucode_info(retval, ...
Line could be right or wrong based on what the retval is logically. This, on the other hand:
bool failed = false; ... if (rev != mc->hdr.rev) { retval = -1; failed = true; } ... print_ucode_info(failed, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, ...
*Clearly* and unambiguously matches up with:
static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, ...
| |