From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86, amd_ucode: Skip microcode updates for final levels Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:00:41 -0400 Message-ID: <55BFBA59.6070004@oracle.com> References: <1438619749-1625-1-git-send-email-aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <55BFA354.4040009@oracle.com> <55BFAA6A.2040108@amd.com> <55BFB06F.7070101@oracle.com> <55BFB61F.5090805@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55BFB61F.5090805@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Aravind Gopalakrishnan , jbeulich@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com Cc: keir@xen.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/03/2015 02:42 PM, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: > > Ah. I see what you mean. > I can think of two ways around this- > a. I can move the check_final_patch_levels() call to > apply_microcode(). That way, our initial checks in microcode_fits() > would have already checked equivalent cpu IDs so we know we are on the > right family. > b. Introduce a family check in this patch as you suggested (It's a > simple change, should work fine too and I think can retain Andrew's > 'Reviewed-by' as the logic doesn't change too much..) > > Do let me know if you have a preference. I'd leave it where it is right now since there is no reason to do all allocations/checks/stuff and then get to apply_microcode() and find out that it was all for nothing. So just testing boot_cpu_data.x86 in check_final_patch_levels() and returning if it's not 10h should be sufficient. Thanks. -boris