linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions (updated)

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]

Message-ID: <47AE76B8.6060304@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:59:52 -0800
From:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, gregkh@...e.de, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [git pull] CPU isolation extensions (updated)

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> Linus, please pull CPU isolation extensions from
> 
> Did I miss something in this discussion?  I thought
> Ingo was quite clear, and Linus pretty clear too,
> that this patch should bake in *-mm or some such
> place for a bit first.
> 

Andrew said:
> The feature as a whole seems useful, and I don't actually oppose the merge
> based on what I see here.  As long as you're really sure that cpusets are
> inappropriate (and bear in mind that Paul has a track record of being wrong
> on this :)).  But I see a few glitches ....

As far as I can understand Andrew is ok with the merge. And I addressed all 
his comments.

Linus said:
> Have these been in -mm and widely discussed etc? I'd like to start more 
> carefully, and (a) have that controversial last patch not merged initially 
> and (b) make sure everybody is on the same page wrt this all..

As far as I can understand Linus _asked_ whether it was in -mm or not and whether
everybody's on the same page. He did not say "this must be in -mm first".
I explained that it has not been in -mm, and who it was discussed with, and did a 
bunch more testing/investigation on the controversial patch and explained why I think 
it's not that controversial any more.

Ingo said a few different things (a bit too large to quote). 
- That it was not discussed. I explained that it was in fact discussed and provided
a bunch of pointers to the mail threads.
- That he thinks that cpuset is the way to do it. Again I explained why it's not.
And at the end he said:
> Also, i'd not mind some test-coverage in sched.git as well.

I far as I know "do not mind" does not mean "must go to" ;-). Also I replied that 
I did not mind either but I do not think that it has much (if anything) to do with
the scheduler.

Anyway. I think I mentioned that I did not mind -mm either. I think it's ready for
the mainline. But if people still strongly feel that it has to be in -mm that's fine.
Lets just do s/Linus/Andrew/ on the first line and move on. But if Linus pulls it now
even better ;-)

Andrew, Linus, I'll let you guys decide which tree it needs to go.

Max
--
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/