Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions
From: Andi Kleen
Date: Thu Oct 25 2018 - 19:23:14 EST
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:20:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.
I opted for the simpler method of returning a boolean now.