Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:18:26 +0200 | From | "Dmitry Adamushko" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes |
| |
2008/7/29 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com>: > Fixed coding style issues.
I have a comment on the abstraction layer (microcode_ops).
[ Not that I've looked very carefully at it so far, nor I pretend to be at-ease with this 'microcode' topic to make any design judgements :-) ]
but would it be somehow possible to not have set_cpus_allowed_ptr() code in arch-dependent parts? Let's say the mechanism of how to run certain arch-specific code (and synchronization) on a given cpu should be a prerogative of (and placed in) the generic part...
Note, this code will likely happily give you an oops if you run cpu_down/up() ;-)
I also wondered, is there a requirement that when a new cpu is brought up, microcode updates {should,must} be done as early as possible, say before any tasks have a chance to run on it? Or can the update be a bit delayed? e.g. we don't do it from cpu-hotplug handlers.
-- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
| |