Re: [tip: x86/msr] x86/cpu: Stop using 32-bit MSR interfaces

[Jürgen Groß]

On 17.07.26 11:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:15:54AM -0000, tip-bot2 for Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > index 1fdcd69..c670fbb 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c
> > > @@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ static void early_init_transmeta(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > >   
> > >   static void init_transmeta(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > >   {
> > > -	unsigned int cap_mask, uk, max, dummy;
> > > +	u64 msr;
> > > +	unsigned int max, dummy;
> > >   	unsigned int cms_rev1, cms_rev2;
> > >   	unsigned int cpu_rev, cpu_freq = 0, cpu_flags, new_cpu_rev;
> > >   	char cpu_info[65];
> >
> > The tip-tree preferred ordering of variable declarations at the
> > beginning of a function is reverse fir tree order::
>
> While that's true, the style violation is a pre-existing condition
> in the current code:
>
> 	unsigned int cap_mask, uk, max, dummy;
> 	unsigned int cms_rev1, cms_rev2;
> 	unsigned int cpu_rev, cpu_freq = 0, cpu_flags, new_cpu_rev;
> 	char cpu_info[65];
>
> ... and the best policy regarding API conversion patches like this
> is to keep the original style, to not mix several changes together,
> which only makes review harder.
>
> But I agree with fixing the style problems of course, but it should
> be done either in a preparatory patch, or in a followup patch. Either
> ordering is fine to me.

I'll send a followup patch.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature