Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] x86/pat: Replace Intel x86_model checks with VFM ones

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/11/25 11:44, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> +	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> +	    ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_PENTIUM_PRO && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_PENTIUM_M_DOTHAN) ||
> +	    (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL))) {

Since these are both closed checks and not open-ended, is the

	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&

bit needed or superfluous?

Also, super nit, can you vertically align the two range checks, please?

	    ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_PENTIUM_PRO   && c->x86_vfm <=
INTEL_PENTIUM_M_DOTHAN) ||
	     (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <=
INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL))) {






[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux