Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932093Ab1EYTOH (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 15:14:07 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:41275 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605Ab1EYTOF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 15:14:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,268,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="8699583" Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:13:21 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andi Kleen , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, intel: Output microcode revision Message-ID: <20110525191321.GB14151@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1306278210-18285-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20110525065451.GC429@elte.hu> <20110525165436.GA14958@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20110525185912.GB17864@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110525185912.GB17864@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1724 Lines: 51 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Look at the context diff above, it has 'cpu_index', so no, there was no > consistent convention to follow. Well all the CPU specific fields. Anyways I renamed it now. > attention to that lack of means of testing? :-) > > > > > - /* see notes above for revision 1.07. Apparent chip bug */ > > > > This particular code pattern has no chip bug. The CPUID is required > > by the documentation! So whoever wrote it didn't read the > > documentation. So yes I dropped that obviously bogus comment. > > And you thus 'obviously' forked away the reading of the microcode > version into another file, with the same 'obviously wrong' comment > left behind in another place? I just wrote new code with correct comments. > > It always was documented this way. > > FYI, the x86 microcode driver actually predates official public Are you sure you're not confusing that with the AMD driver? AFAIK Intel was always documented. > No, it's not a problem to add /proc/cpuinfo fields in the middle - > please add this new field to the logical place. Ok. > > > > Huh? There's only a single one now. > > That's not actually true. With your patches applied a trivial git > grep shows the two places reading the microcode version: Ok you count the re-reading. Fair enough. I guess I can remove the comment there too. BTW before my patches there were four places, I collapsed it down to two if you count that. -Andi -- 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/