[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cz91pr8d.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 19:58:42 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, alison.schofield@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 1/7] x86/microcode/intel: Remove redundant microcode
rev pr_info()s
Ashok!
On Tue, Nov 29 2022 at 13:08, Ashok Raj wrote:
> There is a pr_info() to dump information about newly loaded microcode.
There... Somewhere, right?
> The code intends this pr_info() to be just once, but the check to ensure
> is racy. Unfortunately this happens quite often in with this new change
> resulting in multiple redundant prints on the console.
-ENOPARSE. Can you try to express that in coherent sentences please?
> microcode_init()->schedule_on_each_cpu(setup_online_cpu)->collect_cpu_info
>
> [ 33.688639] microcode: sig=0x50654, pf=0x80, revision=0x2006e05
> [ 33.688659] microcode: sig=0x50654, pf=0x80, revision=0x2006e05
> [ 33.688660] microcode: sig=0x50654, pf=0x80, revision=0x2006e05
>
> There is already a pr_info() in microcode/core.c as shown below:
>
> microcode: Reload completed, microcode revision: 0x2b000041 -> 0x2b000070
There are quite some pr_info()'s in microcode/core.c...
$function_name() prints the new and the previous microcode revision once
when the load has completed:
microcode: Reload completed, microcode revision: 0x2b000041 -> 0x2b000070
Hmm?
> The sig and pf aren't that useful to end user, they are available via
The sig and pf ?!? Come on, you really can do better.
> /proc/cpuinfo and this never changes between microcode loads.
>
> Remove the redundant pr_info() and the racy single print checks. This
> removes the race entirely, zap the duplicated pr_info() spam and
> simplify the code.
The last sentence does not qualify as coherent either.
Other than that. Nice cleanup.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists