Re: [PATCH] x86, microcode: Make reload interface per system

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:57:36PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to backport the new ABI
> for the Debian 3.2 kernel or not. Probably not.

Nope, changing released kernels' ABI is a no-no.

> Backporting to 3.2 and 3.0 is straigthforward, however it will look
> nasty as one has to "inappropriately touch" the cpu sysdev class to
> get the attribute group directly connected to /sys/devices/system/cpu.
>
> I did notice there were no stable backports of the error unwind during
> module init, but that one is a very rarely used codepath. Maybe worth
> to backport a fix to stable, though.

Yeah, stable rules say we only backport regression fixes and although
missing error unwind is a small regression, I've never heard of it
causing trouble.

> Well, my ack is unimportant in the "this is not an area of the kernel
> I have any authority to ack things" sense. But we don't have a
> "I-wanna-that-by:" or even a "Thumbs-up-by:"...

Which reminds me, I forgot to add your tags to the patches, sorry.

@hpa: Would you please add Henrique's {Tested,Acked}-by tags to the
patches? Thanks.

> > Thanks for review and testing, I'll send out the patches soon.
> 
> Thank you for addressing these issues and writing the patches!

Sure, absolutely! :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/