From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aravind Gopalakrishnan Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86, amd_ucode: Skip microcode updates for final levels Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:43:31 -0500 Message-ID: <55CA1823.5010703@amd.com> References: <1438630443-1904-1-git-send-email-aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <55CA28720200007800099AAD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55CA115A.1050701@amd.com> <55CA1220.8030209@citrix.com> <55CA1491.7040502@amd.com> <55CA319E0200007800099B5B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55CA319E0200007800099B5B@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, keir@xen.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 8/11/2015 10:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> +static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu) >>>>> unsigned int >>>>> >>>> I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this? >>>> The other sanity checker or verification functions like >>>> verify_patch_size() or microcode_fits() return a bool_t too.. >>> "int cpu" is the issue (I am guessing), not the return type. >>> >> Thought about that too.. but all the microcode_ops functions accept an >> 'int cpu'. >> I'm just using the same type in check_final_patch_levels(). > And ideally all other bad examples would be fixed in a cleanup > patch too - CPU numbers can't be negative. In any event we > should aim at not proliferating such sub-optimal code. > Okay, I can clean that up while at it. Would it be OK if I did a pre-patch to cleanup the 'int cpu' usage in the microcode* files and then apply this patch on top of it? Thanks, -Aravind.