linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] cpusets: Add provisions for distinguishing CPU Hotplug in suspend/resume path

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:	Tue, 15 May 2012 11:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...nel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
	paul@...lmenage.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	nacc@...ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com, tj@...nel.org, mschmidt@...hat.com,
	berrange@...hat.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, liuj97@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] cpusets: Add provisions for distinguishing CPU
 Hotplug in suspend/resume path

On Tue, 15 May 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

> >> Cpusets needs to distinguish between a regular CPU Hotplug operation and a
> >> CPU Hotplug operation carried out as part of the suspend/resume sequence.
> >> So add provisions to facilitate that, so that the two operations can be
> >> handled differently.
> >>
> > 
> > There's no functional change with this patch and it's unclear from this 
> > changelog why we need to distinguish between the two, so perhaps fold this 
> > into patch 5 or explain how this will be helpful in this changelog?  
> > Otherwise it doesn't seem justifiable to add 30 more lines of code.
> 
> 
> Well, as 0/5 explains, this whole patchset is a suspend/resume-only fix.
> So we need special-case handling for suspend/resume in cpusets. So the
> additional code is justified, IMHO. It prepares the ground for patch 5.
> 

Your change, once merged, will not carry patch 0/5 here, so it would be 
helpful to understand why we need to distinguish between the two as a 
stand-alone patch in your changelog.
--
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/