>>> On 11.08.15 at 17:43, <aravind.gopalakrish...@amd.com> wrote: > On 8/11/2015 10:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> +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. >> > > > Okay, I can clean that up while at it. > > Would it be OK if I did a pre-patch to cleanup the 'int cpu' usage in > the microcode* files and then apply this patch on top of it?
Sure. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
