linux-kernel - Re: [EDAC ABI v13 04/25] events/hw_event: Create a Hardware Events Report Mecanism (HERM)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 12:34:25 -0300
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [EDAC ABI v13 04/25] events/hw_event: Create a Hardware Events
 Report Mecanism (HERM)

Em 10-05-2012 12:20, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:12 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:08:32PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> There's also another technical reason to give an acronym to the EDAC
>>> version that actually works: changeset numbers are not consistent
>>> within distributions (or other trees, like -stable - although this 60+
>>> patch series probably won't fit on -stable merging criteria).
>>>
>>> Also, this EDAC changeset 60+ patch series can't be represented by a
>>> single changeset, and requires userspace changes in order to get a
>>> proper representation model for memories.
> 
> Is this a redesign of EDAC or just a fix of it?

It is a redesign. The EDAC core were designed to work only when the memory
controller can directly see/work with the DRAM chip select pins and have
non-independent channel buses.

In order to fix it, the EDAC core were redesigned.

> Does this require
> userspace to use a new ABI?

Yes, it requires a new API. 

The legacy ABI will still be provided, if EDAC_LEGACY_SYSFS is selected.

>>>
>>> Tagging the EDAC core version with a name helps a lot when dealing
>>> with all the unsolved bugzillas that will be closed by backporting
>>> this patch series in order to fix the serious EDAC core bug that
>>> were providing fake information to the end user for all Intel memory
>>> controllers manufactured after 2005.
>>
>> edac_module.c:18:#define EDAC_VERSION "Ver: 2.1.0"
>>
>> Increment that in the last patch.
> 
> If this is redesigning a subsystem and changing the ABI for userspace
> than a new name is appropriate. Much like ipchains turning into
> iptables.

That's what I think too.

Anyway, I'll move this to the last patch on the series (in the past rebases,
this were the last patch on the series), incrementing the version there.

> But if this is just fixing the subsystem where userspace sees no
> difference, than the same name fits.
> 
> -- Steve

Regards,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/