Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@xxxxxxx>:
> > Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues:
> >
> > IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the firmware loading
> > interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space responsibilities to
> > loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode patch file at
> > the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned in this
> > thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think?
>
> It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on
> the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due
> to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module
> name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way.
>
> We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (==
> microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from
> microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not
> ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels).

I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order
to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.

The module name is important also on udev method: only a module
load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the
new method should have stable kernel module name.

ciao
	cate

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/