Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 4/8] microcode: delete 'mc' field from struct ucode_cpu_info

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:25:03AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>Thanks for the cleanup!
>
>On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 03:06:46PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h 
>> b/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
>> index fc98fed..507da2e 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
>> @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ struct microcode_patch {
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct microcode_ops {
>> -    int (*microcode_resume_match)(unsigned int cpu, const void *mc);
>>      int (*cpu_request_microcode)(unsigned int cpu, const void *buf,
>>                                   size_t size);
>>      int (*collect_cpu_info)(unsigned int cpu, struct cpu_signature *csig);
>> @@ -39,11 +38,6 @@ struct cpu_signature {
>>  
>>  struct ucode_cpu_info {
>>      struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
>> -    union {
>> -        struct microcode_intel *mc_intel;
>> -        struct microcode_amd *mc_amd;
>> -        void *mc_valid;
>> -    } mc;
>>  };
>
>Is there really a need for such structure since it only has one field
>now?
>
>I'm trying to figure out whether this is expanded by further patches,
>but it seems like it's not, if so please remove the struct altogether.
>
>I'm also wondering whether it's needed to store the cpu signature in
>the pcpu area, AFAICT you always call collect_cpu_info before
>apply_microcode, at which point cpu_signature could be stored in the
>stack and passed to apply_microcode as a parameter?
>
>Or apply_microcode could call collect_cpu_info directly. Getting rid
>of the pcpu field would also allow you to get rid of
>microcode_fini_cpu, further cleaning the code.

Your suggestions are viable and will follow them.

Thanks
Chao

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel