[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY8PR11MB7134A6BA8506765F7C3A9141894D2@CY8PR11MB7134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:57:37 +0000
From: "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
To: "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 06/10] x86/mce: Convert multiple if () statements into
a switch() statement
> From: Mehta, Sohil <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
> [...]
> On 10/22/2024 7:08 PM, Zhuo, Qiuxu wrote:
> > OK. So, back to your original question below, what is your answer to
> > it now? :-)
> >
> > "Can some of the hardcoded numbers be changed to vfm macros as
> well?"
> >
>
> Even though it takes a tiny bit of reading to understand the VFM macros, the
> pros significantly outweigh the cons. I still feel we should go ahead and make
> the changes.
Thanks for letting me know your thoughts.
To me, the VFM-based checks can make the code more compact.
So, if nobody else objects, I'll include this VFM-based check version in the next version.
- Qiuxu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists