>>> On 15.01.19 at 13:52, <pu...@hygon.cn> wrote:
> On 2019/1/15 0:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.12.18 at 14:12, <pu...@hygon.cn> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
>>> @@ -162,7 +162,8 @@ mcequirk_lookup_amd_quirkdata(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> - BUG_ON(c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD);
>>> + if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Please can you leave this untouched and change the single
>> caller instead? If need be down the road (but of course you'll
>> never introduce quirky behavior), we'd then add
>> mcequirk_lookup_hygon_quirkdata().
>
> Yes, I can leave this function untouched. And change the single caller
> amd_mcheck_init():
> - enum mcequirk_amd_flags quirkflag = mcequirk_lookup_amd_quirkdata(ci);
> + enum mcequirk_amd_flags quirkflag = 0;
> +
> + if (ci->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
> + quirkflag = mcequirk_lookup_amd_quirkdata(ci);
>
> Is the modification OK?
Yes.
> Also add mcequirk_lookup_hygon_quirkdata() is another solution, even
> though it will do nothing at the moment.
No need to introduce it until it would actually do anything.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
