x86: kernel/microcode_core.c simple_strtoul cleanup

Change reload_for_cpu() in kernel/microcode_core.c to call kstrtoul() instead of calling obsoleted simple_strtoul().

Signed-off-by Shuah Khan <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c |    9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c +4 -5

index c9bda6d..fbdfc69 100644
@@ -299,12 +299,11 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct device *dev,
 {
 	unsigned long val;
 	int cpu = dev->id;
-	int ret = 0;
-	char *end;
+	ssize_t ret = 0;
 
-	val = simple_strtoul(buf, &end, 0);
-	if (end == buf)
-		return -EINVAL;
+	ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &val);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	if (val == 1) {
 		get_online_cpus();

Signature · 1 line

1.7.9.5

Quoted 4 lines · Shuah Khan

Change reload_for_cpu() in kernel/microcode_core.c to call kstrtoul() instead of calling obsoleted simple_strtoul().

Signed-off-by Shuah Khan <[email protected]>

Ok, much better, thanks.

@Ingo: I'll pick this one up unless you want to do that :-).

I'll pick it up. I presume I have your ack on it?

Quoted 1 line · H. Peter Anvin

I'll pick it up. I presume I have your ack on it?

Yep, sure.

Btw, while at it, I gave the whole sysfs reload thing a critical look and whether it is at all that useful - this thing gives you microcode reloading on a single CPU. And what you actually wanna do is reload the microcode on the whole system, i.e. all cores in succession.

And we don't use the reload thing on AMD, so I was wondering, if you guys don't find it useful on Intel hw, maybe we can remove it completely in favor of

$ rmmod microcode; modprobe microcode

which reloads the ucode on each core.

Of course, one can iterate over each core in a shell-loop and write into the reload file to reload ucode after having updated the ucode image in /lib/firmware but removing and then modprobing the module is shorter :-)

Quoted 4 lines

Of course, one can iterate over each core in a shell-loop and write into the reload file to reload ucode after having updated the ucode image in /lib/firmware but removing and then modprobing the module is shorter :-)

Can we PLEASE fix it properly by adding a new node (which is _not_ per-cpu) that requests the microcode core to refresh all cpus? Preferably by invalidating the microcode cache, THEN fetching each required microcode just once for the first core that needs it, and caching it for use the other cores. You can leave the (IMHO mostly useless) per-cpu sysfs nodes alone, so as to not break ABI, or deprecate them for an year or something.

I am speaking this with my userland maintainer hat. I *do NOT* want to rmmod crap in a production server to update microcode. And I want to be able to support static-compiled microcode.

Quoted 14 lines · Henrique de Moraes Holschuh

Quoted 4 lines

Of course, one can iterate over each core in a shell-loop and write into the reload file to reload ucode after having updated the ucode image in /lib/firmware but removing and then modprobing the module is shorter :-)

Can we PLEASE fix it properly by adding a new node (which is _not_ per-cpu) that requests the microcode core to refresh all cpus? Preferably by invalidating the microcode cache, THEN fetching each required microcode just once for the first core that needs it, and caching it for use the other cores. You can leave the (IMHO mostly useless) per-cpu sysfs nodes alone, so as to not break ABI, or deprecate them for an year or something.

Quoted 4 lines

I am speaking this with my userland maintainer hat. I *do NOT* want to rmmod crap in a production server to update microcode. And I want to be able to support static-compiled microcode.

Seconded. There's also the ability to disable module unloading.

Quoted 8 lines · Henrique de Moraes Holschuh

Quoted 4 lines

Of course, one can iterate over each core in a shell-loop and write into the reload file to reload ucode after having updated the ucode image in /lib/firmware but removing and then modprobing the module is shorter :-)

Can we PLEASE fix it properly by adding a new node (which is _not_ per-cpu) that requests the microcode core to refresh all cpus?

Quoted 3 lines

Preferably by invalidating the microcode cache, THEN fetching each required microcode just once for the first core that needs it, and caching it for use the other cores.

Quoted 2 lines

You can leave the (IMHO mostly useless) per-cpu sysfs nodes alone, so as to not break ABI, or deprecate them for an year or something.

Quoted 3 lines

I *do NOT* want to rmmod crap in a production server to update microcode. And I want to be able to support static-compiled microcode.