Re: [PATCH 2/3] V5 more sampling fun 2

Mark,

speck for mark gross <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:17:44PM +0200, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Mark,
>> 
>> speck for mark gross <[email protected]> writes:
>> > +
>> > +static bool __init cpu_matches(unsigned long which, const struct x86_cpu_id *table)
>> >  {
>> > -	const struct x86_cpu_id *m = x86_match_cpu(cpu_vuln_whitelist);
>> > +	const struct x86_cpu_id *m = x86_match_cpu(table);
>> 
>> Can this and the fixup of the caller please be in a separate patch?
>
> Sure but, as a stand alown patch (outside the context of the srbds changes)
> making the x86_cpu_id pased by pointer instead of a hard coded global is a bit
> un-motivated.  Is it ok of I keep it as part of the SRBDS patchset and not
> post it separately to lkml?

Of course it's part of ther SRBDS patch set, but it's way simpler to
review than this all in one combo change.

Thanks,

        tglx