Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 09/16] microcode: remove pointless 'cpu' parameter

[Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 01.08.2019 12:22, Chao Gao wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
> @@ -78,23 +78,23 @@ struct mpbhdr {
>   static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(microcode_update_lock);
>   
>   /* See comment in start_update() for cases when this routine fails */
> -static int collect_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu, struct cpu_signature *csig)
> +static int collect_cpu_info(struct cpu_signature *csig)
>   {
> -    struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data[cpu];
> +    struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &current_cpu_data;
>   
>       memset(csig, 0, sizeof(*csig));
>   
>       if ( (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD) || (c->x86 < 0x10) )
>       {
>           printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: CPU%d not a capable AMD processor\n",
> -               cpu);
> +               smp_processor_id());
>           return -EINVAL;
>       }
>   
>       rdmsrl(MSR_AMD_PATCHLEVEL, csig->rev);
>   
>       pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d collect_cpu_info: patch_id=%#x\n",
> -             cpu, csig->rev);
> +             smp_processor_id(), csig->rev);
>   
>       return 0;
>   }

Argh - I'd been wrong saying "The only other use of "cpu" is in a
pr_debug()" in a reply to v7. I had managed to overlook the use in
the printk(). This suggests that the earlier solution was better,
as now we have at least two smp_processor_id() in the function, in
a debug build three of them. I'm sorry.

Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
preferably with the change above moved back to its v7 shape, but
given this was my mistake I won't insist. If there was no need for
v9, then this could also be done while committing.

Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel