Re: [tip: x86/msr] x86/cpu: Stop using 32-bit MSR interfaces

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:

> On 17.07.26 11:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:15:54AM -0000, tip-bot2 for Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > > index 1fdcd69..c670fbb 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > > @@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ static void early_init_transmeta(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > > >   static void init_transmeta(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > > >   {
> > > > -	unsigned int cap_mask, uk, max, dummy;
> > > > +	u64 msr;
> > > > +	unsigned int max, dummy;
> > > >   	unsigned int cms_rev1, cms_rev2;
> > > >   	unsigned int cpu_rev, cpu_freq = 0, cpu_flags, new_cpu_rev;
> > > >   	char cpu_info[65];
> > > 
> > > The tip-tree preferred ordering of variable declarations at the
> > > beginning of a function is reverse fir tree order::
> > 
> > While that's true, the style violation is a pre-existing condition
> > in the current code:
> > 
> > 	unsigned int cap_mask, uk, max, dummy;
> > 	unsigned int cms_rev1, cms_rev2;
> > 	unsigned int cpu_rev, cpu_freq = 0, cpu_flags, new_cpu_rev;
> > 	char cpu_info[65];
> > 
> > ... and the best policy regarding API conversion patches like this
> > is to keep the original style, to not mix several changes together,
> > which only makes review harder.
> > 
> > But I agree with fixing the style problems of course, but it should
> > be done either in a preparatory patch, or in a followup patch. Either
> > ordering is fine to me.
> 
> I'll send a followup patch.

Thank you!

	Ingo