[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4qWjJOwQ/YsiRT0@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:21:32 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
CC: X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 3/7] x86/microcode/core: Move microcode_check() to
cpu/microcode/core.c
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:57:23PM -0800, Mehta, Sohil wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 1:08 PM, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > microcode_check() is only called from microcode/core.c. Move it and make
> > it static to prepare for upcoming fix of false negative when checking CPU
> > features after a microcode update.
>
> Should we use this opportunity to also make the function name a bit more
> descriptive? microcode_check() seems very ambiguous to a first time reader.
>
> > +/*
> > + * The microcode loader calls this upon late microcode load to recheck features,
> > + * only when microcode has been updated. Caller holds microcode_mutex and CPU
> > + * hotplug lock.
> > + */
> > +static void microcode_check(void)
>
> How about, microcode_recheck_features() or simply recheck_features() since
> it is static now?
I suppose we could. But given that the function already has some comments
around it and its not having multiple call sites, it seems to be reasonably
serving its named purpose :-)
Cheers,
Ashok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists