linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: cpu: Use constant definitions for CPU type

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:31:49 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        andriy.shevchenko@...el.com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
        ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qi-ming.wu@...el.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@...el.com, rahul.tanwar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: cpu: Use constant definitions for CPU type

Rahul,

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Rahul Tanwar wrote:

Please use the proper prefix for your patches. x86 uses

x86/subsystem: not x86: subsystem:

> This patch replaces direct values usage with constant definitions usage
> when access CPU models.

Please do not use 'This patch'. We already know that this is a patch
otherwise you wouldn't have sent it with [PATCH] on the subject line,
right?

See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and search for 'This
patch'.

> Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> index 8d6d92ebeb54..0419fba1ea56 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -265,9 +265,9 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  	/* Penwell and Cloverview have the TSC which doesn't sleep on S3 */
>  	if (c->x86 == 6) {
>  		switch (c->x86_model) {
> -		case 0x27:	/* Penwell */
> -		case 0x35:	/* Cloverview */
> -		case 0x4a:	/* Merrifield */
> +		case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SALTWELL_MID:	/* Penwell */
> +		case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SALTWELL_TABLET:	/* Cloverview */
> +		case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_MID:	/* Merrifield */

Are these comments really still useful now that the defines are used? I
don't think so.

Thanks,

	tglx