Re: [patch-2.3.46-p2] P6 microcode update support

[Richard Gooch]

Tigran Aivazian writes:
> > > Ok, I will come back with implementation when it is ready.
> > >
> > 
> > I *really* think this is a mistake for reasons previously explained.
> > This should be /dev/microcode or /dev/cpu/microcode
> 
> well, let's agree on this. I agree with Linus that the latest version of
> /dev/microcode patch is ok, so if he accepts it as is (i.e. a char misc
> driver on minor=184) it will be fine.
> 
> I also can save a minor number and implement the /proc/driver/microcode.
> 
> I cannot (right now) implement a devfs-aware version
> /dev/cpu/microcode because I have not looked at Richard's devfs
> stuff yet.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/kernel-patches.html

> Of Linus' /proc/driver vs /dev argument I understood b) but not a) or
> c). Namely,
> 
>  a) there is still userspace setup of using ioct on a proc file

What he means is that the administrator has to create a device node to
make it accessible. With a virtual device node in procfs or devfs this
isn't needed.

>  c) whether kernel has update support or not is determined by whether
>   the minor=184 is accessible (perhaps by loading a driver) or not.
>   /proc does not make things much easier.

It's much friendlier to the sysadmin or script writer to list the
directory or test for the file than to do a speculative open. I don't
know of a standard programme (say part of shell utils) that does this.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]