From: "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
To: olecom@flower.upol.cz
Cc: "LKML (Cc removed)" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: coding for optimizations (Re: [PATCH 1/2] i386: mce cleanup part1: functional change)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:30:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071009183011.GE13205@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071009173317.GD22435@flower.upol.cz>
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:33:17PM +0200, olecom@flower.upol.cz wrote:
> if (!mce_disabled) {
> if (!(c->x86_capability & (X86_FEATURE_MCA | X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> smp_processor_id());
> return;
> }
> /* function code */
> }
I have 2 problems with this way:
1) It is totally broken because c->x86_capability is not an integer but
an *array* of integers. This is also the reason why test_bit() is used
in cpu_has() and not plain logical operators.
2) It is still hard to read and breaks the kernel coding style.
But you are right with the redundant mca and mce variables. They are not
needed and I will inline the cpu_has() checks into the condition check.
I'll resubmit tomorrow.
--
| AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG
Operating | Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Germany
System | Register Court Dresden: HRA 4896
Research | General Partner authorized to represent:
Center | AMD Saxony LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, US)
| General Manager of AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-09 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-09 12:49 [PATCH 0/2] i386: MCE updates Joerg Roedel
2007-10-09 12:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] i386: mce cleanup part1: functional change Joerg Roedel
2007-10-09 16:04 ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-09 16:06 ` Joerg Roedel
2007-10-09 16:32 ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-09 16:54 ` Joerg Roedel
2007-10-09 20:46 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-10-10 1:58 ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-09 17:33 ` coding for optimizations (Re: [PATCH 1/2] i386: mce cleanup part1: functional change) Oleg Verych
2007-10-09 18:30 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2007-10-10 23:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-11 15:26 ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-11 15:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-11 16:13 ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-09 12:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] i386: mce cleanup part2: conding style cleanups Joerg Roedel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071009183011.GE13205@amd.com \
--to=joerg.roedel@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olecom@flower.upol.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox