| Message ID | 1403031893-29436-1-git-send-email-alex.hung@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On 17/06/14 20:04, Alex Hung wrote: > New systems usually have new microcode than kernel does, and > therefore reporting failures is not correct. This patch changes > it to report skipped when kernel does not have microcode updates. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> > --- > src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > index 016b938..4434275 100644 > --- a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > +++ b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > @@ -230,13 +230,10 @@ static int microcode_test1(fwts_framework *fw) > } > > /* > - * We found the old revision but not a > - * new revsion, failed > + * Kernel does not have newer version than BIOS > */ > if (info->new_revision == UNKNOWN) { > - failed++; > - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "MicrocodeNotUpdated", > - "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " > + fwts_log_info(fw, "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " > "The current firmware is revision 0x%x and probably has not been updated.", > cpu, info->old_revision); > continue; > Tested this out and it looks good to me Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
On 06/18/2014 03:04 AM, Alex Hung wrote: > New systems usually have new microcode than kernel does, and > therefore reporting failures is not correct. This patch changes > it to report skipped when kernel does not have microcode updates. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> > --- > src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > index 016b938..4434275 100644 > --- a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > +++ b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c > @@ -230,13 +230,10 @@ static int microcode_test1(fwts_framework *fw) > } > > /* > - * We found the old revision but not a > - * new revsion, failed > + * Kernel does not have newer version than BIOS > */ > if (info->new_revision == UNKNOWN) { > - failed++; > - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "MicrocodeNotUpdated", > - "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " > + fwts_log_info(fw, "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " > "The current firmware is revision 0x%x and probably has not been updated.", > cpu, info->old_revision); > continue; > Acked-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
diff --git a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c index 016b938..4434275 100644 --- a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c +++ b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c @@ -230,13 +230,10 @@ static int microcode_test1(fwts_framework *fw) } /* - * We found the old revision but not a - * new revsion, failed + * Kernel does not have newer version than BIOS */ if (info->new_revision == UNKNOWN) { - failed++; - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "MicrocodeNotUpdated", - "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " + fwts_log_info(fw, "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. " "The current firmware is revision 0x%x and probably has not been updated.", cpu, info->old_revision); continue;
New systems usually have new microcode than kernel does, and therefore reporting failures is not correct. This patch changes it to report skipped when kernel does not have microcode updates. Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> --- src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)