On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 3:09 PM CET, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/01/2026 9:38 am, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
>> b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
>> index f8eca48170..2ac9fc2d96 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
>> @@ -317,8 +317,11 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(
>> {
>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) data;
>>
>> - guest_from_compat_handle(data, op->u.microcode.data);
>> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MICROCODE_LOADING) )
>> + break;
>>
>> + guest_from_compat_handle(data, op->u.microcode.data);
>> ret = ucode_update_hcall(data, op->u.microcode.length, 0);
>> break;
>> }
>> @@ -327,8 +330,11 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(
>> {
>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) data;
>>
>> - guest_from_compat_handle(data, op->u.microcode2.data);
>> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MICROCODE_LOADING) )
>> + break;
>>
>> + guest_from_compat_handle(data, op->u.microcode2.data);
>> ret = ucode_update_hcall(data, op->u.microcode2.length,
>> op->u.microcode2.flags);
>> break;
>
> Very minor. This diff looks like this because you've dropped the blank
> line between guest_from_compat_handle() and ucode_update_hcall(). That
> can also be fixed up on commit.
sure
>
> ~Andrew
