Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 20/30] x86/microcode: Sanitize __wait_for_cpus()
In-Reply-To: <20230922162429.GKZQ2/vfYY21ty5bqR@fat_crate.local>
References: <20230912065249.695681286@linutronix.de>
 <20230912065502.022650614@linutronix.de>
 <20230922162429.GKZQ2/vfYY21ty5bqR@fat_crate.local>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:51:33 +0200
Message-ID: <87wmwdfhbe.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 22 2023 at 18:24, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:58:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +	for (timeout = 0; timeout < USEC_PER_SEC; timeout++) {
>> +		if (!atomic_read(cnt))
>> +			return true;
>
> <---- newline here.
>
>> +		udelay(1);
>
> And here.
>
> Otherwise it looks too crammed.

Oh well.

>> +		if (!(timeout % 1000))
>
> MSEC_PER_SEC - no naked numbers pls.

MSEC_PER_SEC? Thats really wrong because timeout counts in microseconds,
no? So USEC_PER_MSEC.

>> +			touch_nmi_watchdog();
>>  	}
>> -	return 0;
>> +	/* Prevent the late comers to make progress and let them time out */
>
> s/to make progress/from making progress/
>
> Nice, otherwise.