[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:0.037 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site