Re: amd64: Check cpu_vendor instead of using CPUID.

[Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda]

This has already been committed...

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Franco Fichtner <slash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>>>> Just being paranoid... strncmp?
>>>>
>>>> Why ? It's a terminated string vs a string literal, what do you wanna
>>>> use as the third argument: strlen("AuthenticAmd") ? . 100% pointless.
>>>
>>> I can see your point and yet it is being used in the line below your
> change. Do you want to call that author's intent '100% pointless' as well
just
> for the sake of winning an argument or do you simply not care about the
depth
> and inherent wisdom of the code base you are working on?
>>>
>>
>> You rush into conclusions, cpu_model is different, he actually wants
>> the first 5 bytes to evaluate to "Intel", not the whole string, which
>> could be something like:
>>
>> hw.model=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHz
>
> Since my first mail I am talking about the mycpu_model line in the
> diff. It's there. I am asking why it differs from your added line.
>
> It's fine when you feel other people do pointless work or point out
> pointless things. On the other hand, other people may not like the
> level of hostility and resistance to advice (as bad as it may be
> in this case). I am no expert on OpenBSD and if this is how tech
> discussions are handled, I'm not sure if I ever will.
>
> The intent of your patch is very good, especially with legibility
> in mind. But if you touch that line, why do it half-heartedly? And
> why ask for comments in the first place?
>
>>>>> And how about consolidating style while at it? "!" vs. "== 0" - see
code
> bits below change.
>>>>
>>>> Consolidating how ? Are you suggesting we change all strcmp calls in
>>>> kernel to use "== 0" ? Please.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't care either way, but it's bad style to ignore the
> context and change styles. It makes the code harder to read, understand and
> maintain. Take a look. Ok?
>>>
>>
>> You care enough to send an email without even checking the other uses,
>> if you did, you'll see that !strcmp is more consistent for this case
>> than strncmp.
>
> I care enough to point out an inconsistency in your patch...
>
>>
>> *You* are ignoring the context and trying to change styles.
>
> ... and now we are talking about me being the evil guy who is trying
> to change you and the context. Not gonna happen. :)
>
>>>>>> + B  B if (!strcmp(cpu_vendor, "AuthenticAMD"))
>>>>>> B  B  B amd64_errata(ci);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B if (strncmp(mycpu_model, "VIA Nano processor", 18) == 0) {
>
>
> Franco