[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bee2b2-4e62-b159-75fb-22f9abb5ac68@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 13:51:38 -0500
From: "Koralahalli Channabasappa, Smita" <skoralah@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, yazen.ghannam@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/mce: Use mca_msr_reg() in prepare_msrs()
On 10/28/21 3:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:19:51PM -0500, Koralahalli Channabasappa, Smita wrote:
>> Multiple initialization here I mean: Initializing the MCA registers twice.
>> Prior to mca_msr_reg() replacement, the MCA registers were initialized
>> separately for SMCA and legacy processors. However, this is not required
>> after replacing with mca_msr_reg() as it does the job of returning the
>> proper MSR addresses.
> You mean, there was a simple if-else statement
>
> if (SMCA)
>
> prepare MSRs
>
> else
>
> prepare MSRs for !SMCA
>
> which did the init for each type of system in one go.
>
> But frankly, your change doesn't make it more readable but less - you
> have a goto label now and another SMCA feature check at the end. Vs a
> simple if-else which is trivial to read.
>
> So I don't see any advantage in this change.
Okay. I will rework and remove this patch in my next series.
Thanks,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists