Re: [Xen-devel] pvops microcode support for AMD FAM >= 15

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

(Putting debian-kernel to bcc, since I don't imagine they are interested
in the details of this discussion, I'll reraise the result with the
Debian Xen maintainer when we have one)

On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:53 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:27 +0000, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 12/05/2012 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > But all of this shouldn't lead to equivalent ID mismatches, should
> > > it? It ought to simply find nothing to update...
> > 
> > 
> > The patch file (/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd_fam15h.bin) may 
> > contain more than one patch. The driver goes over this file patch by 
> > patch and tries to see whether to apply it.
> > 
> > I think what happened in Ian's case was that the patch file contained 
> > two patches --- one for this processor (ID 6012) and another for a 
> > different processor (ID 6101). (Both are family 15h but different revs).
> > 
> > The driver applied the first patch on core 0. Then, on core 1, the code 
> > tried the first patch (at file offset 60) and noticed that it is already 
> > applied. So it continued to the next patch (at offset 2660) which is not 
> > meant for this processor, thus generating the "does not match" message.

OOI what would have happened if the two patches were in the opposite
order? Would CPU0 have seen the ID 6101 patch first and aborted?

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel