Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode: move @microcode_mutex definition near usage
In-Reply-To: <20230324151933.GCZB2/hUOFuECIF1AG@fat_crate.local>
References: <20230324114720.1756466-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20230324120019.GAZB2Q09ODVq0iYz5l@fat_crate.local>
 <87edpenvkh.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
 <20230324151933.GCZB2/hUOFuECIF1AG@fat_crate.local>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 17:39:35 +0106
Message-ID: <87a602nm74.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-03-24, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>> I was doing some tests with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT. I did not think that
>> mattered, since the mutex is obviously defined but not used for
>> !CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_LOADING.
>
> Oh sure, I see that. I'd still like to have in the commit message why
> exactly it happens.

Note that an unused mutex is being defined, even when the compiler is
not warning about it.

>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT cannot be enabled yet, so this patch is not urgent for
>> mainline. But at some point it will need fixing.
>
> Sure, send it to me when it can be triggered with a .config with the
> upstream tree, along with exact explanation how it happens and I'll
> queue it.

OK, but the kernel test robots will probably beat me to it. ;-)

John Ogness