Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86, microcode, intel: add error logging to early update driver

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 18:41 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:10:15PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > In fact, I have a patch somewhere that needs to add a new failure message:
> > we have several failure cases which we want to differentiate, at the very
> > least "processor didn't like it" and "it looks corrupt, so we didn't even
> > try to install it".
> 
> Actually, I don't want to be too chatty with the loader: if the
> microcode blob passes checks but it is not for the current processor
> we're running, not saying anything is what I want to do.
> 
> Why? Because I don't want to disturb people unnecessarily - if the
> microcode doesn't apply and everything else checks out, you simply don't
> need it.
> 
> If one really wants to know, one can always check /proc/cpuinfo and read
> out the microcode revision from the blob. But that is for the 1% of the
> curious ones - everyone else should simply install microcode blob and
> boot machine. Fire and forget.
> 
> Only the abnormal error cases should be vocal in saying what's wrong so
> that we can actually address those.

Maybe make it emit at KERN_DEBUG

--
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/