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 ; 08 Apr 2020 23:21:24 -0000 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jMK0Z-0005ts-Tw for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 01:21:24 +0200 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] V5 more sampling fun 2 In-Reply-To: <20200408203320.GB136636@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> References: <87imibjpev.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200408203320.GB136636@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 01:21:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhblpnrh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: Mark, speck for mark gross writes: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:17:44PM +0200, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Mark, >> >> speck for mark gross writes: >> > + >> > +static bool __init cpu_matches(unsigned long which, const struct x86_cpu_id *table) >> > { >> > - const struct x86_cpu_id *m = x86_match_cpu(cpu_vuln_whitelist); >> > + const struct x86_cpu_id *m = x86_match_cpu(table); >> >> Can this and the fixup of the caller please be in a separate patch? > > Sure but, as a stand alown patch (outside the context of the srbds changes) > making the x86_cpu_id pased by pointer instead of a hard coded global is a bit > un-motivated. Is it ok of I keep it as part of the SRBDS patchset and not > post it separately to lkml? Of course it's part of ther SRBDS patch set, but it's way simpler to review than this all in one combo change. Thanks, tglx