[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7k9DNz//vqBAvZK@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 10:36:22 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] x86/microcode: Display revisions only when update
is successful
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:29:00PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > Yes, that makes sense, Do you think we can add a note that the loading
> > failed? since the old -> new, new is coming from new microcode rev.
>
> It has failed when
>
> old == new.
>
> I.e.,
>
> "microcode revision: 0x1a -> 0x1a"
>
> when the current revision on the CPU is 0x1a.
So wouldn't it make sense to also display the fact that the microcode
loading failed?
Seeing '0x1a -> 0x1a' one might naively assume from the wording alone that
it got "reloaded" or somehow reset, or that there's some sub-revision
update that isn't visible in the revision version - when in fact nothing
happened, right?
The kernel usually tries to tell users unambigiously when some requested
operation didn't succeed - not just hint at it somewhat
passive-aggressively.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists