Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:59:44 -0800 | From | Ashok Raj <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails |
| |
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:35:33AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > 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, ...
Yes, it makes good sense.. I'll fix up next update including the commit log that you called out.
| |