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:	Wed, 16 May 2012 00:47:36 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 05/16/2012 12:04 AM, David Rientjes wrote:

> 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.
> 

Sorry, I didn't quite get your point. Do you just want me to update this
changelog or do you still want me to squash this patch with patch 5?

If its the former, ok, I can try (though, I really don't know what else
to add.. it already says that we need to have special case handling of
cpusets for suspend/resume.. and also says that this patch adds the
necessary provisions.. which implies I am going to use these provisions
next (in patch 5)..) Or, are you asking me to explain *why* we need to
have special case handling for suspend/resume? If that is the case, I
could probably move some bits from the changelog of patch 5 to this patch.

However, if its the latter (ie., you want me to still squash it with
patch 5), I am not quite convinced about it.. I still think doing that
will clutter patch 5 unnecessarily.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/