On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:44 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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... Awesome - thank you both! I'll send a v2 using for_each_node_with_cpus() ... On Monday :) Have a good weekend!
