linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup

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: <20071011205548.62af1b97@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:55:48 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@....com>
Cc:	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup

> So when I change the above code snippet to:
> 
> +	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> +		printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> +			smp_processor_id());
> +		return;
> 
> Would this make the whole patch acceptable then?

I think the fundamental direction is wrong. "Do you have a machine check
like facility" is a CPU specific question that belongs in the CPU
specific code.

If some of that CPU specific code is wrong, fix it there.

Alan
-
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/