[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0807290918kaa0a05es3cebf7a6f15fb790@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:18:26 +0200
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: "Peter Oruba" <peter.oruba@....com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Tigran Aivazian" <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Max Krasnyanskiy" <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes
2008/7/29 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>:
> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists