Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes

[Dmitry Adamushko]

2008/7/29 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@xxxxxxx>:
> Fixed coding style issues.

I have a comment on the abstraction layer (microcode_ops).

[ Not that I've looked very carefully at it so far, nor I pretend to
be at-ease with this 'microcode' topic to make any design judgements
:-) ]

but would it be somehow possible to not have set_cpus_allowed_ptr()
code in arch-dependent parts? Let's say the mechanism of how to run
certain arch-specific code (and synchronization) on a given cpu should
be a prerogative of (and placed in) the generic part...

Note, this code will likely happily give you an oops if you run
cpu_down/up() ;-)

I also wondered, is there a requirement that when a new cpu is brought
up, microcode updates {should,must} be done as early as possible, say
before any tasks have a chance to run on it? Or can the update be a
bit delayed? e.g. we don't do it from cpu-hotplug handlers.


-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/