>>> On 11.08.15 at 17:28, <aravind.gopalakrish...@amd.com> wrote: > On 8/11/2015 10:17 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> >>>>> + 0x01000098, >>>>> + 0x0100009f, >>>>> + 0x010000af >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu) >>>> unsigned int >>>> >>> I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this? >>> The other sanity checker or verification functions like >>> verify_patch_size() or microcode_fits() return a bool_t too.. >> "int cpu" is the issue (I am guessing), not the return type. >> > > Thought about that too.. but all the microcode_ops functions accept an > 'int cpu'. > I'm just using the same type in check_final_patch_levels().
And ideally all other bad examples would be fixed in a cleanup patch too - CPU numbers can't be negative. In any event we should aim at not proliferating such sub-optimal code. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
