On 26.03.2020 16:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/03/2020 14:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.03.2020 15:35, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2020 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>>>>> @@ -46,9 +46,16 @@ struct microcode_header_intel {
>>>>> unsigned int sig;
>>>>> unsigned int cksum;
>>>>> unsigned int ldrver;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Microcode for the Pentium Pro and II had all further fields in the
>>>>> + * header reserved, had a fixed datasize of 2000 and totalsize of
>>>>> 2048,
>>>>> + * and didn't use platform flags despite the availability of the MSR.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> unsigned int pf;
>>>>> - unsigned int datasize;
>>>>> - unsigned int totalsize;
>>>>> + unsigned int _datasize;
>>>>> + unsigned int _totalsize;
>>>> ... the underscores here dropped again. Or else - why did you add
>>>> them? This (to me at least) doesn't e.g. make any more clear that
>>>> the fields may be zero on old hardware.
>>> No, but it is our normal hint that you shouldn't be using the field
>>> directly, and should be using the accessors instead.
>> Yet in patch 5 you do. Perhaps for an understandable reason, but
>> that way you at least partly invalidate what you say above.
>
> The net result of of patch 5 is three adjacent helpers, which are the
> only code which use the fields themselves.
>
> I can drop if you really insist. We're only talking about 400 lines or
> code, or thereabouts.
Well, I find it odd this way, but no, if you're convinced it's better,
I'm not going to insist.
Jan
