From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752284AbYITGIP (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:08:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750802AbYITGH7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:07:59 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:48500 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbYITGH6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:07:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:07:26 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Oruba Cc: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" , Dmitry Adamushko , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , Tigran Aivazian , LKML Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c. Message-ID: <20080920060726.GC25713@elte.hu> References: <20080728164411.490752571@amd.com> <20080728164448.492961653@amd.com> <20080907120823.59f8fa47@infradead.org> <48CA586C.2010104@amd.com> <20080912063517.783b7f85@infradead.org> <48D3942B.1050901@amd.com> <48D3A1FD.7010309@debian.org> <48D3A338.5070400@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48D3A338.5070400@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Oruba wrote: > Giacomo A. Catenazzi schrieb: > > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > >> 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba : > >>> Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues: > >>> > >>> IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the > >>> firmware loading > >>> interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space > >>> responsibilities to > >>> loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode > >>> patch file at > >>> the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned > >>> in this > >>> thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think? > >> > >> It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on > >> the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due > >> to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module > >> name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way. > >> > >> We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (== > >> microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from > >> microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not > >> ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels). > > > > I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order > > to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades. > > > > The module name is important also on udev method: only a module > > load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the > > new method should have stable kernel module name. > > > > ciao > > cate > > > > That sounds like a single-module solution would be the best way to go. > All dependencies would then be handled inside the module. yes - as long as the internal abstraction is clean (and it is rather clean with Dmitry's changes applied too), that should be fine and maintainable. Ingo