On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Borislav Petkov wrote: > So Prarit, please split this patch into changes which *directly* address > the issue and other cleanups ontop. This will simplify review immensely > as having one single bulky patch is not easy on the eyes. > > Then, make sure to audit the lowlevel drivers whether they're already > issuing output on the error path before adding new printks arbitrarily.
Something else I couldn't check just from the description (and I apologise, but I did not look at your patch closely enough to check how you implemented the functionality on Intel): in the general case, it is NOT acceptable to bail out if you cannot find the firmware for the first processor. Mixed-stepping systems do exist, and you might need to update the microcode of, e.g, just the third processor. AMD can get away with a half-done implementation of negative caching (or an "optimised one" depending on your PoV :) ) because they have per-family firmware files, so even mixed-stepping systems will require only the same file. This is *not* true for Intel, which is really annoying. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
