Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Jan 2023 20:25:14 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] x86/microcode/intel: Use a plain revision argument for print_ucode_rev() |
| |
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 07:35:53AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote: > @@ -343,33 +340,23 @@ void show_ucode_info_early(void) > * At this point, we can not call printk() yet. Delay printing microcode info in > * show_ucode_info_early() until printk() works. > */ > -static void print_ucode(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci) > +static void print_ucode(int new_rev, int date) > { > struct microcode_intel *mc; > int *delay_ucode_info_p; > int *current_mc_date_p; > > - mc = uci->mc; > - if (!mc) > - return; > - > delay_ucode_info_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(&delay_ucode_info); > current_mc_date_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(¤t_mc_date); > > *delay_ucode_info_p = 1; > - *current_mc_date_p = mc->hdr.date; > + *current_mc_date_p = date;
Here's how I know you haven't tested this on 32-bit:
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c: In function ‘print_ucode’: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c:344:33: error: unused variable ‘mc’ [-Werror=unused-variable] 344 | struct microcode_intel *mc; | ^~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:252: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.o] Error 1 make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode] Error 2 make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu] Error 2 make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel] Error 2 make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86] Error 2 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make: *** [Makefile:2008: .] Error 2
Testing is overrated, right?
The maintainers can do that, ofc.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |