lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 18:21    [W:0.176 / U:0.928 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site