Message ID | 20241111060428.44258-7-qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | x86/mce: Clean up some x86/mce code | expand |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 02:04:26PM +0800, Qiuxu Zhuo wrote: > Remove the unnecessary {} from the case statement. > > Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com> > Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> But please see note below. > --- > Changes in v4: > - No changes. > > Changes in v3: > - Collect "Reviewed-by:" from Nikolay & Sohil. > > Changes in v2: > - Collect "Reviewed-by:" from Tony. > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c > index d288cc7390f6..0f0c6e9d9183 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c > @@ -2118,10 +2118,9 @@ static void __mcheck_cpu_init_vendor(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > mce_intel_feature_init(c); > break; > > - case X86_VENDOR_AMD: { > + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: > mce_amd_feature_init(c); > break; > - } > > case X86_VENDOR_HYGON: > mce_hygon_feature_init(c); > -- I think this could be a bit more substantive if you also combine the AMD and HYGON cases. And remove mce_hygon_feature_init() which just calls mce_amd_feature_init() anyway. Thanks, Yazen
Hi Yazen, > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> > [...] > > Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> Thanks! > But please see note below. > [...] > > - case X86_VENDOR_AMD: { > > + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: > > mce_amd_feature_init(c); > > break; > > - } > > > > case X86_VENDOR_HYGON: > > mce_hygon_feature_init(c); > > -- > > I think this could be a bit more substantive if you also combine the AMD and > HYGON cases. And remove mce_hygon_feature_init() which just calls > mce_amd_feature_init() anyway. How about a separate patch for this? If It's OK for you, I'll follow up on it after the current patch series has settled. -Qiuxu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:32:08PM +0000, Zhuo, Qiuxu wrote: > Hi Yazen, > > > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> > > [...] > > > > Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com> > > Thanks! > > > But please see note below. > > [...] > > > - case X86_VENDOR_AMD: { > > > + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: > > > mce_amd_feature_init(c); > > > break; > > > - } > > > > > > case X86_VENDOR_HYGON: > > > mce_hygon_feature_init(c); > > > -- > > > > I think this could be a bit more substantive if you also combine the AMD and > > HYGON cases. And remove mce_hygon_feature_init() which just calls > > mce_amd_feature_init() anyway. > > How about a separate patch for this? > If It's OK for you, I'll follow up on it after the current patch series has settled. > Sure thing. No problem. Thanks, Yazen
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:32:08PM +0000, Zhuo, Qiuxu wrote:
> How about a separate patch for this?
Can you drop this micro-change per patch? Just do a single patch here which
fixes up everything mentioned during review in that area and be done with it.
Hi Boris, > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> > [...] > > Can you drop this micro-change per patch? Just do a single patch here which > fixes up everything mentioned during review in that area and be done with it. OK. I'll drop this one and replace it with Yazen's suggestion in next version. -Qiuxu
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c index d288cc7390f6..0f0c6e9d9183 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c @@ -2118,10 +2118,9 @@ static void __mcheck_cpu_init_vendor(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) mce_intel_feature_init(c); break; - case X86_VENDOR_AMD: { + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: mce_amd_feature_init(c); break; - } case X86_VENDOR_HYGON: mce_hygon_feature_init(c);