[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52670744.3040103@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:16:20 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86@...nel.org,
Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>,
tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] intel_microcode, Fix long microcode load time when
firmware file is missing
On 10/21/2013 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/2013 08:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And why don't you pass FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG? and you are sure
>>>>> that udev isn't required to handle your microcode update request?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AFAICT in both cases, udev wasn't required to handle the cpu microcode update.
>>>> Both drivers use CMH to load the firmware which removes the need for udev to do
>>>> anything. Admittedly maybe I've missed some odd use case but I don't think it
>>>> is necessary.
>>>
>>> OK, so I guess the CMH still need uevent to get notified, right?
>>
>> The code as it is _currently_ written does not use uevents to load the processor
>> firmware. ie) call_usermodehelper does not need uevent to get notified, so I
>> think FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG is correct.
>
> You need to make sure your patch won't break userspace in old
> distribution with your _currently_ code.
>
AFAICT, Suse, Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora all work with my changes.
P.
--
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