[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.
    Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
    > 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <>:
    >> Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues:
    >> IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the firmware loading
    >> interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space responsibilities to
    >> loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode patch file at
    >> the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned in this
    >> thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think?
    > It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on
    > the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due
    > to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module
    > name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way.
    > We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (==
    > microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from
    > microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not
    > ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels).

    I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order
    to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.

    The module name is important also on udev method: only a module
    load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the
    new method should have stable kernel module name.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-19 15:01    [W:0.020 / U:2.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site