linux-kernel - [PATCH] [34/40] i386: Clean up arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070430102809.25C8A151D2@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:28:09 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	zach@...are.com, patches@...-64.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] [34/40] i386: Clean up arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c


From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>

No, just no.  You do not use goto to skip a code block.  You do not
return an obvious variable from a singly-inlined function and give
the function a return value.  You don't put unexplained comments
about kmalloc in code which doesn't do dynamic allocation.  And
you don't leave stray warnings around for no good reason.

Also, when possible, it is better to use block scoped variables
because gcc can sometime generate better code.

Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>

---
 arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c |   16 ++++------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

===================================================================
Index: linux/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/p4.c
@@ -124,13 +124,10 @@ static void intel_init_thermal(struct cp
 
 
 /* P4/Xeon Extended MCE MSR retrieval, return 0 if unsupported */
-static inline int intel_get_extended_msrs(struct intel_mce_extended_msrs *r)
+static inline void intel_get_extended_msrs(struct intel_mce_extended_msrs *r)
 {
 	u32 h;
 
-	if (mce_num_extended_msrs == 0)
-		goto done;
-
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_EAX, r->eax, h);
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_EBX, r->ebx, h);
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_ECX, r->ecx, h);
@@ -141,12 +138,6 @@ static inline int intel_get_extended_msr
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_ESP, r->esp, h);
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_EFLAGS, r->eflags, h);
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_EIP, r->eip, h);
-
-	/* can we rely on kmalloc to do a dynamic
-	 * allocation for the reserved registers?
-	 */
-done:
-	return mce_num_extended_msrs;
 }
 
 static fastcall void intel_machine_check(struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code)
@@ -155,7 +146,6 @@ static fastcall void intel_machine_check
 	u32 alow, ahigh, high, low;
 	u32 mcgstl, mcgsth;
 	int i;
-	struct intel_mce_extended_msrs dbg;
 
 	rdmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_STATUS, mcgstl, mcgsth);
 	if (mcgstl & (1<<0))	/* Recoverable ? */
@@ -164,7 +154,9 @@ static fastcall void intel_machine_check
 	printk (KERN_EMERG "CPU %d: Machine Check Exception: %08x%08x\n",
 		smp_processor_id(), mcgsth, mcgstl);
 
-	if (intel_get_extended_msrs(&dbg)) {
+	if (mce_num_extended_msrs > 0) {
+		struct intel_mce_extended_msrs dbg;
+		intel_get_extended_msrs(&dbg);
 		printk (KERN_DEBUG "CPU %d: EIP: %08x EFLAGS: %08x\n",
 			smp_processor_id(), dbg.eip, dbg.eflags);
 		printk (KERN_DEBUG "\teax: %08x ebx: %08x ecx: %08x edx: %08x\n",
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/