From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3303DC31E44 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111B62080A for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727598AbfFQIod (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:44:33 -0400 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:31449 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725971AbfFQIod (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 04:44:33 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jun 2019 01:44:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com ([172.25.110.60]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2019 01:44:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 01:35:02 -0700 From: Fenghua Yu To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , H Peter Anvin , Christopherson Sean J , Paolo Bonzini , Radim Krcmar , Ravi V Shankar , linux-kernel , x86 , Jacob Pan , Len Brown , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/resctrl: Get max rmid and occupancy scale directly from CPUID instead of cpuinfo_x86 Message-ID: <20190617083502.GD214090@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> References: <1560705250-211820-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <1560705250-211820-2-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20190617031808.GA214090@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> <20190617075214.GB27127@zn.tnic> <20190617080909.GC214090@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> <20190617083048.GE27127@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190617083048.GE27127@zn.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:30:48AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:09:09AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > I just keep the code a bit uniform around the calling area where > > a few functions are called. So get_cqm_info() makes the code a bit more > > readable. > > > > init_scattered_cpuid_features(c); > > init_speculation_control(c); > > + get_cqm_info(c); > > > > /* > > * Clear/Set all flags overridden by options, after probe. > > * This needs to happen each time we re-probe, which may happen > > * several times during CPU initialization. > > */ > > apply_forced_caps(c); > > } > > > > Maybe not? If the function is not good, I can directly put the code here? > > If you want to have it cleaner, make that a separate patch and say so in > the commit message. Patches should do one logical thing and not mix up > different changes which makes review harder. So in patch 0001, move the code of getting CQM info from before calling init_scattered_cpuid_features(c) to after calling the function. Then in patch 0002, carve out the code of getting CQM info into a helper function get_cqm_info(c) for cleaner code. Is this OK? Or the patch 0002 is unnecessary? Thanks. -Fenghua