[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes
    2008/7/29 Peter Oruba <>:
    > 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:0.020 / U:14.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site