> > just not do it on the right CPU (you're _not_ supposed to read to see if
> > you are writing the same value: MTRR's can at least in theory have
> > side-effects, so it's not the same check as for the microcode update).
> So why not just set it twice - surely that is harmless ? Why add complex
> code ?
I wondered the same thing of the microcode changes.
Since for the commoncase (ie, non-HT) it now has the side-effect of
doing this..
microcode: CPU0 updated from revision 7 to 7, date-10151999
which looks odd in comparison to the old "already current" msg.
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/