On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> 
> No need to have it marked "inline" - let gcc decide. Also, shorten the
> argument name and simplify while-test.
> 
> No functionality change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c 
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> index 3f89e6712afe..889fd61bc033 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> @@ -97,17 +97,16 @@ static size_t compute_container_size(u8 *data, u32 
> total_size)
>       return size;
>  }
>  
> -static inline u16 find_equiv_id(struct equiv_cpu_entry *equiv_cpu_table,
> -                             unsigned int sig)
> +static u16 find_equiv_id(struct equiv_cpu_entry *equiv_table, u32 sig)
>  {
>       int i = 0;
>  
> -     if (!equiv_cpu_table)
> +     if (!equiv_table)
>               return 0;
>  
> -     while (equiv_cpu_table[i].installed_cpu != 0) {
> -             if (sig == equiv_cpu_table[i].installed_cpu)
> -                     return equiv_cpu_table[i].equiv_cpu;
> +     while (equiv_table[i].installed_cpu) {
> +             if (sig == equiv_table[i].installed_cpu)
> +                     return equiv_table[i].equiv_cpu;
>  
>               i++;

While you are at it, please rewrite that thing as a for loop, which is the
obvious correct thing:

        for (i = 0; equiv_table[i].installed_cpu; i++)

and even simpler:

        for (; equiv_table->installed_cpu; equiv_table++)
        
Hmm?

Thanks,

        tglx

Reply via email to