Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:25:17 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc:     X86-kernel <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, alison.schofield@intel.com,
        reinette.chatre@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 3/7] x86/microcode/core: Move microcode_check() to
 cpu/microcode/core.c
Message-ID: <Y44bbZMMf8I6Lzl/@zn.tnic>
References: <20221129210832.107850-1-ashok.raj@intel.com>
 <20221129210832.107850-4-ashok.raj@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221129210832.107850-4-ashok.raj@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 01:08:28PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> microcode_check() is only called from microcode/core.c. Move it and make
> it static to prepare for upcoming fix of false negative when checking CPU
> features after a microcode update.

So this function is there in cpu/common.c because it uses CPU facilities
like cpuinfo_x86 and get_cpu_cap() so the logical place was there.
So that I don't have to export a bunch of things but rather have the
microcode loader call into it only.

Your next patch is using more of those CPU-specific facilities so
"bleeding" them into the microcode loader looks like the wrong way
around.

get_cpu_cap() deals with all those c->x86_capability arrays and other
functions which do that, should be there too.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette