On 26/03/2020 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.03.2020 15:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On a perhaps tangential note, what (if anything) are you plans regarding
>> backport here?
>>
>> These defines are ok for a transitional period across a series (and
>> probably means I'll need to get the AMD side
On 26.03.2020 15:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On a perhaps tangential note, what (if anything) are you plans regarding
> backport here?
>
> These defines are ok for a transitional period across a series (and
> probably means I'll need to get the AMD side ready to be committed at
> the same time), bu
On 26/03/2020 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.03.2020 15:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/03/2020 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Currently, we allocate an 8 byte struct microcode_patch to point at a
separately allocated struct microcode_intel.
On 25.03.2020 15:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/03/2020 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Currently, we allocate an 8 byte struct microcode_patch to point at a
>>> separately allocated struct microcode_intel. This is wasteful.
>> As indicated elsewhere I'
On 25/03/2020 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Currently, we allocate an 8 byte struct microcode_patch to point at a
>> separately allocated struct microcode_intel. This is wasteful.
> As indicated elsewhere I'm very much in favor of this, but I think it
> w
On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Currently, we allocate an 8 byte struct microcode_patch to point at a
> separately allocated struct microcode_intel. This is wasteful.
As indicated elsewhere I'm very much in favor of this, but I think it
wants doing in one of the earlier series, and th
