From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932148Ab1JRJsw (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:48:52 -0400 Received: from s15228384.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.30.177]:42701 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108Ab1JRJsv (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:48:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:48:32 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: David Rientjes Cc: Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar , X86-ML , LKML , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, microcode: Correct microcode revision format Message-ID: <20111018094831.GB17076@aftab> References: <1318865115-9904-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <1318865115-9904-2-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <20111018075145.GB16100@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:14:05AM -0400, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > > > > index 8af6fa4..ad8d897 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static void print_mce(struct mce *m) > > > > * Note this output is parsed by external tools and old fields > > > > * should not be changed. > > > > */ > > > > - pr_emerg(HW_ERR "PROCESSOR %u:%x TIME %llu SOCKET %u APIC %x microcode %u\n", > > > > + pr_emerg(HW_ERR "PROCESSOR %u:%x TIME %llu SOCKET %u APIC %x microcode %x\n", > > > > m->cpuvendor, m->cpuid, m->time, m->socketid, m->apicid, > > > > cpu_data(m->extcpu).microcode); > > > > > > > > > > Any reason why this isn't prefixed with "0x"? > > > > Well, no strong reason except that APIC is without '0x' and I leaned > > towards the same for 'microcode'. And since this output format is legacy > > and MCE stanzas are being parsed by scripts, keeping the format for new > > fields sounded like the right thing to do, IMHO. > > > > Anytime there's a string that prints decimal, then hex, then decimal, then > decimal, then hex, then hex, I think it's always better to include a > prefix where it's not clear. It's printed here without the prefix and in > other places with the prefix, so I think it would be better to just be as > explicit as possible. Why do I need to be explicit in the MCE stanza? I'm fine with what you're saying but I don't see a compelling reason why, sorry. Especially since it was defined crappy to begin with. > And, the argument that scripts are parsing this is actually bogus > since it would be expecting decimal there and you'd actually be doing > them a favor by breaking if they can't handle the "0x" since you've > changed it to hex. I know the comment says not to change old fields, > but the microcode field hasn't hit Linus' tree yet, either. Right, either way I don't seem to care too much. The only thing I care about is having ucode revision in hex in all places, with or without the "0x" prefix. So what do the others think, let's take a poll here. :-) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551