Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:52:53 -0500 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is processor microcode advised? Message-ID: <CAD2Ti29=wph99huR1HYihJAELsgHT8hDiny0XiEMCEH%2BwDU6Uw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <564F3FBF.8050603@gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti2-0jKLn9RXR5hc5FgZac_CbMnFMHf_XK2vc9f_nuZM=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <564F3FBF.8050603@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote: > sudo /usr/sbin/cpucontrol -v -u -d "/usr/local/share/cpucontrol/" > /dev/cpuctl0 > cpucontrol: skipping /usr/local/share/cpucontrol//m101067770A.fw of rev > 0x70a: up to date > What I infer from this is that my CPU's are already as up to date as the > microcode database is and therefore no process is needed or kept resident. > Am I understanding this correctly? "skipping...up to date" Seems familiar, you can also read the source to find other messages you might receive. One of the two packages you want to regular update if you want pull in new "database" updates from Intel. The tools load it once per boot into the cpu where it remains resident till next boot. There's not daemon process after the cpuctl load. The other script stuff is answered in dmesg, syslogd, and rc.conf pages.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAD2Ti29=wph99huR1HYihJAELsgHT8hDiny0XiEMCEH%2BwDU6Uw>