>>> On 11.08.15 at 17:43, wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 10:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> +static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu)
>> unsigned int
>>
> I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this?
> The other sanity checker or verification functions like
> verif
On 8/11/2015 10:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
+static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu)
unsigned int
I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this?
The other sanity checker or verification functions like
verify_patch_size() or microcode_fits() return a bool_t too..
"int cpu" is
>>> On 11.08.15 at 17:28, wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 10:17 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>
> +0x0198,
> +0x019f,
> +0x01af
> +};
> +
> +static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu)
unsigned int
>>> I can change this too, but- Any specific reason
>>> On 11.08.15 at 17:17, wrote:
> On 11/08/15 16:14, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 9:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.08.15 at 21:34, wrote:
+static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu)
>>> unsigned int
>>>
>>
>> I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for
On 8/11/2015 10:17 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
+0x0198,
+0x019f,
+0x01af
+};
+
+static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu)
unsigned int
I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this?
The other sanity checker or verification functions like
verify_patch_siz
On 11/08/15 16:14, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 9:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.08.15 at 21:34, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
>>> @@ -347,6 +347,43 @@ static int container_fast_forward(const void
>>> *data, size_t size_
On 8/11/2015 9:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.08.15 at 21:34, wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
@@ -347,6 +347,43 @@ static int container_fast_forward(const void *data, size_t
size_left, size_t *of
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * The 'final_levels' o
>>> On 03.08.15 at 21:34, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c
> @@ -347,6 +347,43 @@ static int container_fast_forward(const void *data,
> size_t size_left, size_t *of
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * The 'final_levels' of patch ids have been obta
On 03/08/2015 20:54, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 03:34 PM, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> Some of older[Fam10h] systems require that certain number of
>> applied microcode patch levels should not be overwritten by
>> the microcode loader. Otherwise, system hangs are known to occur.
>>
On 08/03/2015 03:34 PM, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
Some of older[Fam10h] systems require that certain number of
applied microcode patch levels should not be overwritten by
the microcode loader. Otherwise, system hangs are known to occur.
The 'final_levels' of patch ids have been obtained empi
10 matches
Mail list logo
