On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 18:41 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:10:15PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > In fact, I have a patch somewhere that needs to add a new failure message: > > we have several failure cases which we want to differentiate, at the very > > least "processor didn't like it" and "it looks corrupt, so we didn't even > > try to install it". > > Actually, I don't want to be too chatty with the loader: if the > microcode blob passes checks but it is not for the current processor > we're running, not saying anything is what I want to do. > > Why? Because I don't want to disturb people unnecessarily - if the > microcode doesn't apply and everything else checks out, you simply don't > need it. > > If one really wants to know, one can always check /proc/cpuinfo and read > out the microcode revision from the blob. But that is for the 1% of the > curious ones - everyone else should simply install microcode blob and > boot machine. Fire and forget. > > Only the abnormal error cases should be vocal in saying what's wrong so > that we can actually address those.
Maybe make it emit at KERN_DEBUG -- 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/
