lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/6] x86/microcode/intel: Use a plain revision argument for print_ucode_rev()
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 07:35:53AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> @@ -343,33 +340,23 @@ void show_ucode_info_early(void)
> * At this point, we can not call printk() yet. Delay printing microcode info in
> * show_ucode_info_early() until printk() works.
> */
> -static void print_ucode(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci)
> +static void print_ucode(int new_rev, int date)
> {
> struct microcode_intel *mc;
> int *delay_ucode_info_p;
> int *current_mc_date_p;
>
> - mc = uci->mc;
> - if (!mc)
> - return;
> -
> delay_ucode_info_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(&delay_ucode_info);
> current_mc_date_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(&current_mc_date);
>
> *delay_ucode_info_p = 1;
> - *current_mc_date_p = mc->hdr.date;
> + *current_mc_date_p = date;

Here's how I know you haven't tested this on 32-bit:

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c: In function ‘print_ucode’:
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c:344:33: error: unused variable ‘mc’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
344 | struct microcode_intel *mc;
| ^~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:252: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode] Error 2
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu] Error 2
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:2008: .] Error 2

Testing is overrated, right?

The maintainers can do that, ofc.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:42    [W:0.132 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site