linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/intel.c cleanup

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: <20090314170445.GF31930@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:04:45 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/intel.c cleanup


* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 16:31 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't really like this change (last hunk). Doesn't it seem a 
> > > bit pointless? It breaks the symmetry with the masked CPUID 
> > > levels at the beginning of the function. If somebody wants to 
> > > add something else to this function, it might have to be 
> > > reindented again. Or is there a problem with too long lines 
> > > here?
> > 
> > yes, it would be cleaner to put the whole family 15 branch into 
> > a helper inline function instead.
> > 
> 
> OK, better I keep it unchanged :-)

Why not implement the cleanup i suggested?

	Ingo
--
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/