From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 23 Oct 2019 06:49:06 -0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15] helo=mx1.suse.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iNAS9-0003qv-IS for speck@linutronix.de; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:49:05 +0200 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7D4B527 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:48:59 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] TAAv7 4 Message-ID: <20191023064859.GB12272@zn.tnic> References: <20191022165112.GK31458@zn.tnic> <20191023013321.GC30440@guptapadev.amr> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191023013321.GC30440@guptapadev.amr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 06:33:21PM -0700, speck for Pawan Gupta wrote: > Is it okay to move x86_read_arch_cap_msr() further down just before its nee= ded? Yap, that's even better as it is common kernel code pattern: you read/produce a value and then you do checks on it. > + ia32_cap =3D x86_read_arch_cap_msr(); > + you don't need this newline. > if ((ia32_cap & ARCH_CAP_MDS_NO) && > !(ia32_cap & ARCH_CAP_TSX_CTRL_MSR)) > taa_mitigation =3D TAA_MITIGATION_UCODE_NEEDED; Thx. --=20 Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, HRB 36809, = AG N=C3=BCrnberg --=20