On 01.08.2019 12:22, Chao Gao wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,9 @@ static long do_microcode_update(void *_info)
> if ( error )
> info->error = error;
>
> + if ( microcode_ops->end_update )
> + microcode_ops->end_update();
> +
> info->cpu = cpumask_next(info->cpu, &cpu_online_map);
> if ( info->cpu < nr_cpu_ids )
> return continue_hypercall_on_cpu(info->cpu, do_microcode_update,
> info);
This being the only change in this file - don't you also need to
alter the early ucode loading path?
> @@ -631,11 +622,19 @@ static int start_update(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void end_update(void)
> +{
> +#if CONFIG_HVM
> + svm_host_osvw_init();
> +#endif
> +}
Instead of leaving an empty function in the !HVM case, ...
> static const struct microcode_ops microcode_amd_ops = {
> .cpu_request_microcode = cpu_request_microcode,
> .collect_cpu_info = collect_cpu_info,
> .apply_microcode = apply_microcode,
> .start_update = start_update,
> + .end_update = end_update,
... could you please leave this pointer uninitialized (i.e.
NULL) in that case?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
