Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 25 May 2011 12:13:21 -0700 | | From | Andi Kleen <> | | Subject | Re: [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.
Ok.
> > > > 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.
-Andi
|  |