On 16/02/18 13:19, Peter Lawthers wrote:
> From: Uwe Dannowski
>
> Errors on updating the microcode in the processor were silently
> dropped when invoked via the microcode_update hypercall. Also, the log
> message was misleading.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Dannowski
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Nuernberger
> Reviewed-by: Martin Pohlack
> CC: David Woodhouse
> CC: Amit Shah
> CC: Jan Beulich
> CC: Andrew Cooper
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
> index c6b67e4..a9b0ff9 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
> @@ -309,7 +309,8 @@ static int apply_microcode(unsigned int cpu)
> if ( val[1] != uci->mc.mc_intel->hdr.rev )
> {
> printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: CPU%d update from revision "
> - "%#x to %#x failed\n", cpu_num, uci->cpu_sig.rev, val[1]);
> +"0x%x to 0x%x failed. Resulting revision is 0x%x.\n",
> cpu_num,
0x%x and %#x are identical, except the latter is shorter. Also, there's
some indentation issue.
Either way, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper and I
can fix these issues on commit.
> +uci->cpu_sig.rev, uci->mc.mc_intel->hdr.rev, val[1]);
> return -EIO;
> }
> printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d updated from revision "
> @@ -387,7 +388,7 @@ static int cpu_request_microcode(unsigned int cpu, const
> void *buf,
> error = offset;
>
> if ( !error && matching_count )
> -apply_microcode(cpu);
> +error = apply_microcode(cpu);
>
> return error;
> }
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel