On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:30:48AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:09:09AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > I just keep the code a bit uniform around the calling area where > > a few functions are called. So get_cqm_info() makes the code a bit more > > readable. > > > > init_scattered_cpuid_features(c); > > init_speculation_control(c); > > + get_cqm_info(c); > > > > /* > > * Clear/Set all flags overridden by options, after probe. > > * This needs to happen each time we re-probe, which may happen > > * several times during CPU initialization. > > */ > > apply_forced_caps(c); > > } > > > > Maybe not? If the function is not good, I can directly put the code here? > > If you want to have it cleaner, make that a separate patch and say so in > the commit message. Patches should do one logical thing and not mix up > different changes which makes review harder.
So in patch 0001, move the code of getting CQM info from before calling init_scattered_cpuid_features(c) to after calling the function. Then in patch 0002, carve out the code of getting CQM info into a helper function get_cqm_info(c) for cleaner code. Is this OK? Or the patch 0002 is unnecessary? Thanks. -Fenghua
