Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails

[Dave Hansen]

On 1/9/23 07:35, Ashok Raj wrote:
> -static void print_ucode(int old_rev, int new_rev, int date)
> +static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, int new_rev, int date)
...
>  	if (rev != mc->hdr.rev)
> -		return -1;
> +		retval = -1;
>  
>  	uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
>  
>  	if (early)
> -		print_ucode(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> +		print_ucode(retval, old_rev, mc->hdr.rev, mc->hdr.date);
>  	else
> -		print_ucode_info(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> +		print_ucode_info(retval, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return retval;
>  }

I'm generally not a _huge_ fan of having an 'int' implicitly cast to a
bool.  The:

	print_ucode_info(retval, ...

Line could be right or wrong based on what the retval is logically.
This, on the other hand:

	bool failed = false;
	...
	if (rev != mc->hdr.rev) {
		retval = -1;
		failed = true;
	}
	...
	print_ucode_info(failed, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, ...

*Clearly* and unambiguously matches up with:

	static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, ...