On 15.11.2024 19:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/11/2024 11:26 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.11.2024 22:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> microcode_update_cache() now has a single caller, but inlining it shows how
>>> unnecessarily complicated the logic really is.
>>>
>>> Outside of error paths, ther
On 14/11/2024 11:26 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.11.2024 22:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> microcode_update_cache() now has a single caller, but inlining it shows how
>> unnecessarily complicated the logic really is.
>>
>> Outside of error paths, there is always one microcode patch to free. Its
>>
On 12.11.2024 22:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> microcode_update_cache() now has a single caller, but inlining it shows how
> unnecessarily complicated the logic really is.
>
> Outside of error paths, there is always one microcode patch to free. Its
> either result of parse_blob(), or it's the old ca
microcode_update_cache() now has a single caller, but inlining it shows how
unnecessarily complicated the logic really is.
Outside of error paths, there is always one microcode patch to free. Its
either result of parse_blob(), or it's the old cached value.
In order to fix this, have a local patc
