On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:22 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> On 19.08.2024 10:57, Fouad Hilly wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:30 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >> On 25.07.2024 10:27, Fouad Hilly wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c
> >>> @@ -90,6 +90,11 @@ struct ucode_mod_blob {
> >>> size_t size;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +struct patch_with_flags {
> >>> + unsigned int flags;
> >>> + struct microcode_patch *patch;
> >>
> >> Pointer-to-const? If the const was omitted here just because of
> >> microcode_free_patch(), then I think the issue should be taken care
> >> of there.
> >
> > This struct is required as is, I initially added a similar struct with
> > const (which was removed in v6).
> > updated control_thread_fn()
> > -static int control_thread_fn(const struct microcode_patch *patch)
> > +static int control_thread_fn(struct microcode_patch *patch,
> > + unsigned int flags)
>
> And why's that change necessary, other than to cater for the omitted const
> in the struct?
>
I see your point, I will keep const and update microcode_free_patch() as
needed in v7.
>
> Jan
>
Thanks,
Fouad
