Re: BITS handling of CPU microcode updates

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Burt Triplett wrote:
> Out of curiosity, which other discrepancies did you encounter?

That was a false alarm.  We use sync_core() instead of directly calling
CPUID(1), which right now is about the same, just more obfuscated and
complicated depending on some config options.  Well, as long as
sync_core() doesn't change in the future.

There are also SPARSE warnings in the driver, but the code itself is
correct.

> Also, please CC me on the patch, and I'll review the changes.

I will post it in a few minutes.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
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/