On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:41:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 08:10:31AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, kan.li...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >
> > There is another variant of model/stepping micro code verification code in
> > intel_snb_pebs_broken(). Can we please make this table based and use a
> > common function? That's certainly not the last quirk we're going to have.
> >
> > We already have a table based variant of ucode checking in
> > bad_spectre_microcode(). It's trivial enough to generalize that.
>
> apic_check_deadline_errata() is another one. That one already uses the
> x86_cpu_id thing, but still plays silly games for steppings. So if we're
> going to build a new microcode table matcher...
intel_snb_pebs_broken() looks like a potential candidate too...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
