On 07.11.2024 13:21, Andrew Cooper wrote: > There are two callers of microcode_update_cpu(), and because one passes NULL > and one doesn't, there are effectively two disjoint pieces of logic wrapped in > a single function. > > early_microcode_load()'s use skips all the microcode_cache handling, and is > just a simple patch application. > > This skips a redundant collect_cpu_info() call (performed in > early_microcode_init(), marginally earlier), and avoids holding > microcode_mutex when we're not interacting with microcode_cache at all. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> Personally I would have deemed it more logical (and Misra-compliant) to remove the "if ( patch )" case from microcode_update_cpu() right here. Surely (by its title) the next patch is going to have the same effect. Jan
