On 01.08.2019 12:22, Chao Gao wrote: > Both are loading the cached patch. Since APs call the unified function, > microcode_update_one(), during wakeup, the 'start_update' parameter > which originally used to distinguish BSP and APs is redundant. So remove > this parameter. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <[email protected]> > --- > Changes in v8: > - split out from the previous patch > --- > xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c | 2 +- > xen/arch/x86/microcode.c | 36 +++++++++++------------------------- > xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c | 5 +---- > xen/include/asm-x86/processor.h | 4 ++-- > 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c > index 4f21903..24798d5 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/power.c > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int enter_state(u32 state) > > console_end_sync(); > > - microcode_resume_cpu(); > + microcode_update_one(); > > if ( !recheck_cpu_features(0) ) > panic("Missing previously available feature(s)\n"); > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c b/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c > index f0b1e39..cbaf13d 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode.c > @@ -204,24 +204,6 @@ static struct microcode_patch > *microcode_parse_blob(const char *buf, > return NULL; > } > > -int microcode_resume_cpu(void) > -{ > - int err; > - struct cpu_signature *sig = &this_cpu(cpu_sig); > - > - if ( !microcode_ops ) > - return 0; > - > - spin_lock(µcode_mutex); > - > - err = microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(sig); > - if ( likely(!err) ) > - err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(microcode_cache); > - spin_unlock(µcode_mutex); > - > - return err; > -} > - > void microcode_free_patch(struct microcode_patch *microcode_patch) > { > microcode_ops->free_patch(microcode_patch->mc); > @@ -402,7 +384,16 @@ static int __init microcode_init(void) > } > __initcall(microcode_init); > > -int __init early_microcode_update_cpu(bool start_update) > +/* Load a cached update to current cpu */ > +int microcode_update_one(void) > +{ > + return microcode_ops ? microcode_update_cpu(NULL) : 0; > +}
With both callers ignoring the return value, I wonder if the function should return void. Else it might be better (but I'm not entirely certain) for it to return -EOPNOTSUPP rather than 0. > +/* > + * BSP calls this function to parse ucode blob and then apply an update. > + */ This is a single line comment, and hence wants its style changed accordingly. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
