linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: add cpus

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: <47FA6B22.9080900@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:42:42 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: add cpus_scnprintf function v2

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> 
>> I still have some concerns with this cpus_scnprintf patch.
>>
>> I've taken them up with Mike offline for initial consideration.
>>
>> If others have questions, concerns or enthusiasms for this patch, Mike 
>> and I would be interested.
> 
> i dont mind the old patch either (which did an ugly temporary 
> allocation), if it keeps the ABI. I dont think it's a big deal, lets not 
> allow it to become a roadblock, and the overall goal of all these 
> patches [4096 CPU support in upstream Linux] is important and i'm 
> enthusiastic about that ;-)
> 
> 	Ingo

I have no stake in the ground for this either.  My assigned task was to
minimize the effect of bumping up the possible cpu count to a really
large amount.  This seemed to me to fall in this category.  A side goal
was to prepare for even larger cpu count systems.

An alternative that Paul had suggested was to introduce a new set of
file interfaces that produce the alternate format.  This would not
break existing interfaces and allow a transition, though how many
post-processors of the information would change is unclear.  Given
that fact, would the added code and complexity be worthwhile?

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/