linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v01 0/3] Power Capping Framework

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:	Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:52:21 -0700
From:	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v01 0/3] Power Capping Framework

On 08/02/2013 03:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:08:49AM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>> - A uniform sys-fs interface for all devices which can offer power capping
> There is no "-" in sysfs please.
OK.
>> - A common API for drivers, which will avoid code duplication and easy
>> implementation of client drivers.
>>
>> Once this framework is approved, we will submit a RAPL client driver using this
>> framework.
> No, you need users of a framework in order for it to be approved, we
> don't add infrastructure without users.
>
> Especially as what usually happens is, when you add actual users, the
> framework changes to fix the bugs found in it :)
I will post the one client driver, which is already using this framework 
as this series.
> Ideally you will have more than one client driver submitted, as a
> "framework" for just one driver seems a bit odd, don't you think?
There are other groups and vendors interested in using this framework. 
But they want to make sure that this
framework can go to upstream Linux. We will provide one client using 
this framework at this time.
Do you think this is a problem?
> Also, you add lots of new sysfs files, those need to be documented in
> Documentation/ABI/ with this series.
I have a Documentation patch, which describes ABI and framework. It is 
under Documentation/powercap.
Do I need to move this to Documentation/ABI?
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks,
Srinivas

--
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/