[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] x86, intel: Output microcode revision
    On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > Look at the context diff above, it has 'cpu_index', so no, there was no
    > consistent convention to follow.

    Well all the CPU specific fields. Anyways I renamed it now.

    > attention to that lack of means of testing? :-)
    > > > > - /* see notes above for revision 1.07. Apparent chip bug */
    > >
    > > This particular code pattern has no chip bug. The CPUID is required
    > > by the documentation! So whoever wrote it didn't read the
    > > documentation. So yes I dropped that obviously bogus comment.
    > And you thus 'obviously' forked away the reading of the microcode
    > version into another file, with the same 'obviously wrong' comment
    > left behind in another place?

    I just wrote new code with correct comments.

    > > It always was documented this way.
    > FYI, the x86 microcode driver actually predates official public

    Are you sure you're not confusing that with the AMD driver?
    AFAIK Intel was always documented.

    > No, it's not a problem to add /proc/cpuinfo fields in the middle -
    > please add this new field to the logical place.


    > >
    > > Huh? There's only a single one now.
    > That's not actually true. With your patches applied a trivial git
    > grep shows the two places reading the microcode version:

    Ok you count the re-reading. Fair enough. I guess I can remove
    the comment there too.

    BTW before my patches there were four places, I collapsed it down
    to two if you count that.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-25 21:17    [W:0.024 / U:37.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site