Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to check for min microcode revisions

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	bp@alien8.de, mingo@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
	eranian@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/5] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to check for min microcode revisions
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:46:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190205114616.GQ17528@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1549319013-4522-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:23:29PM -0800, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
>  extern const struct x86_cpu_id *x86_match_cpu(const struct x86_cpu_id *match);
>  
> +/*
> + * Match specific microcode revisions.
> + *
> + * vendor/family/model/stepping must be all set.
> + *
> + * only checks against the boot CPU.  When mixed-stepping configs are
> + * valid for a CPU model, add a quirk for every valid stepping and
> + * do the fine-tuning in the quirk handler.
> + */
> +
> +struct x86_cpu_desc {
> +	__u8	x86;		/* CPU family */
> +	__u8	x86_vendor;	/* CPU vendor */

So Boris asked me to remove the tail comments (done), but what about I
do: % s/\<x86\>/&_family/g, on the rest of this too? I know we have
cpuinfo_x86::x86 history, but at some point we should rename that too.

> +	__u8	x86_model;
> +	__u8	x86_stepping;
> +	__u32	x86_microcode_rev;
> +};