Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] x86/mtrr: split off physical address size calculation

[Juergen Gross]

On 11.02.23 11:08, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 08:22:13AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > @@ -654,42 +638,54 @@ void __init mtrr_bp_init(void)
> >   			    (boot_cpu_data.x86_stepping == 0x3 ||
> >   			     boot_cpu_data.x86_stepping == 0x4))
> >   				phys_addr = 36;
> > -
> > -			size_or_mask = SIZE_OR_MASK_BITS(phys_addr);
> > -			size_and_mask = ~size_or_mask & 0xfffff00000ULL;
> >   		} else if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR &&
> >   			   boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6) {
> >   			/*
> >   			 * VIA C* family have Intel style MTRRs,
> >   			 * but don't support PAE
> >   			 */
> > -			size_or_mask = SIZE_OR_MASK_BITS(32);
> > -			size_and_mask = 0;
> >   			phys_addr = 32;
> >   		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	size_or_mask = ~((1ULL << ((phys_addr) - PAGE_SHIFT)) - 1);
>
> Too many brackets because you've taken the macro and put in the argument
> directly.

Oh, yes.

> In any case, reviewing patches which do code movement *and* changes in
> the same diff is always unnecessarily nasty. Please do the mechanical
> code movement only - cleanups come ontop.

Okay.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature