Re: [PATCH 07/18] x86 idle: clarify AMD erratum 400 workaround

[Len Brown]

> > -static cpumask_var_t c1e_mask;
> > +static cpumask_var_t amd_e400_mask;
> 
> Actually, the correct name should be IMHO
> 
> 	amd_e400_c1e_mask

okay.

> > -			c1e_detected = true;
> > +			amd_e400_detected = true;
> 
> Hmm, c1e_detected is still the correct name since those two bits in
> the INT_PENDING MSR mean simply that the system can either generate an
> IO read or an SMI to enter C1E irrespective of E400. So I'd leave it
> c1e_detected.

We don't run the code that sets this flag unless
cpu_has_amd_erratum(amd_erratum_400)

so how about this?:

- c1e_detected
+ amd_e400_c1e_detected

> > -void __init init_c1e_mask(void)
> > +void __init init_amd_e400_mask(void)
> 
> Same here, init_amd_e400_c1e_mask.

done.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/