lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86, amd-ucode: Remove needless log messages
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 03:57:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com> wrote:

[...]

> > - if (mc_header->processor_rev_id != equiv_cpu_id) {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: CPU%d: patch mismatch "
> > - "(processor_rev_id: %x, equiv_cpu_id: %x)\n",
> > - cpu, mc_header->processor_rev_id, equiv_cpu_id);
> > + if (mc_header->processor_rev_id != equiv_cpu_id)
> > return 0;
> > - }
> >
> > /* ucode might be chipset specific -- currently we don't support this */
> > if (mc_header->nb_dev_id || mc_header->sb_dev_id) {
>
> but why remove this one? Someone tries to load a mismatching microcode
> file, isnt that some sort of bug in user-space? (Which ought to find out
> whether it has anything for the CPU at hand, and only attempt it if it's
> matching - or so.)

The ucode file that we provide contains many ucode patches -- its a
"container" file providing patches for several CPUs. Of course this
means that there are patches in the file which are not meant for that
CPU -- that is no error case but rather normal.

> maybe it's not a KERN_ERR but KERN_INFO, but still.

KERN_DEBUG at the most. It's simple as that: if the CPU has same
PATCH_LEVEL before and after microcode.ko tried to update the ucode,
there either was no ucode-file available or it just didn't contain a
newer ucode version for this CPU.

Andreas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-09 14:39    [W:0.096 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site