Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758369AbYG2QSf (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751475AbYG2QS1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:27 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:6852 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860AbYG2QS0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=E8PE/iOgwbt87AoanxmW2cdwSHofD/7vp8tvnDlJI//QH4TFI4u6P/U14ZyL6UbDUa SETLcSkK9FW3nYB1vRouUFs6p4QRiAxMU4GN4bcJWU7NzE/lWgZVI4zoegbhRojxF8E9 yZvb75KxYnnISWv8DzwJMvO7qOggl/PKyxXqM= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:18:26 +0200 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" To: "Peter Oruba" Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Tigran Aivazian" , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , "Max Krasnyanskiy" In-Reply-To: <20080729154103.007575982@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080729154103.007575982@amd.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1178 Lines: 31 2008/7/29 Peter Oruba : > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/