On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:32:20AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/7/25 07:58, Florent Revest wrote:
> > One thing I'm not entirely sure about is that
> > for_each_node_with_cpus() is implemented on top of
> > for_each_online_node(). This differs from the current code which uses
> > for_each_node(). I can't tell if iterating over offline nodes is a bug
You better not have offlined nodes when applying microcode. The path you're
landing in here has already hotplug disabled, tho.
> > or a feature of load_microcode_amd() so this would be an extra change
> > to the business logic which I can't really explain/justify.
>
> Actually, the per-node caches seem to have gone away at some point too.
> Boris would know the history. This might need a a cleanup like Boris
> alluded to in 05e91e7211383. This might not even need a nid loop.
Nah, the cache is still there. For now...
for_each_node_with_cpus() should simply work unless I'm missing some other
angle...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
