Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:23:09 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, eranian@google.com,
        kan.liang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode
 revisions
Message-ID: <20181025232309.6bbxedhkf2ffndsw@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <20181010162608.23899-1-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810171151010.6000@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20181019234743.GA27951@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810201017070.1651@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20181020143857.GC27951@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810210954440.1651@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810210954440.1651@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:20:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Andi,
> 
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:19:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > There is no point to return the pointer because it's not a compound
> > > structure. If you want to provide the possibility to use the index then
> > > return the index and an error code if it does not match.
> > 
> > It will be useful with the driver_data pointer, which you short sightedly
> > forced me to remove, and likely will need to be readded at some point
> > anyways if this gets more widely used.
> 
> It's good and established practice not to add functionality on a 'might be
> used' basis. If you'd provide at least one or two patches which demonstrate
> how that is useful then that would be convincing.
> 
> >  At least with the pointer not all callers will need to be changed then.
> 
> It doesn't need to be changed at all, when done correctly.

Thanks.

I opted for the simpler method of returning a boolean now.

-Andi