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]

Message-ID: <ab4c986c-cd28-7621-f81a-daeb0e597a20@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 11:17:03 +0800
From:   "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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


Hi Thomas,


Thanks for your comments.


On 15/8/2019 6:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Rahul,
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
>
> Please use the proper prefix for your patches. x86 uses
>
> x86/subsystem: not x86: subsystem:


Well noted.


>> 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'.


Well noted.


>> 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.


Agree that these comments can be removed here. These comments are useful to

associate the CPU model with the product name. But, i think, the right 
place to have

these comments is intel-family.h. I will remove these comments from here 
in V2.


Regards,

Rahul