Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, intel: Output microcode revision

[Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:59:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Look at the context diff above, it has 'cpu_index', so no, there was no
> consistent convention to follow.

Well all the CPU specific fields. Anyways I renamed it now.

> attention to that lack of means of testing? :-)
> 
> > > > -	/* see notes above for revision 1.07.  Apparent chip bug */
> > 
> > This particular code pattern has no chip bug. The CPUID is required 
> > by the documentation! So whoever wrote it didn't read the 
> > documentation. So yes I dropped that obviously bogus comment.
> 
> And you thus 'obviously' forked away the reading of the microcode 
> version into another file, with the same 'obviously wrong' comment 
> left behind in another place?

I just wrote new code with correct comments.

> > It always was documented this way.
> 
> FYI, the x86 microcode driver actually predates official public 

Are you sure you're not confusing that with the AMD driver?
AFAIK Intel was always documented.


> No, it's not a problem to add /proc/cpuinfo fields in the middle - 
> please add this new field to the logical place.

Ok.

> > 
> > Huh? There's only a single one now.
> 
> That's not actually true. With your patches applied a trivial git 
> grep shows the two places reading the microcode version:

Ok you count the re-reading. Fair enough. I guess I can remove
the comment there too.

BTW before my patches there were four places, I collapsed it down
to two if you count that.

-Andi