linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in struct cpuinfo

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: <CAELBVzC=O3ViyGD4tKEdajr37WO7FfbM5OU_yjNSWn+8rES1ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:12:01 -0400
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Move per cpu cpu_llc_shared_map to a field in
 struct cpuinfo_x86

On 17 February 2012 07:56, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still wondering if I should I give the same treatment to:
>>
>> cpu_sibling_map
>> cpu_core_map
>> cpu_llc_id
>> cpu_number
>>
>
> Yeah, I'd definitely give them the same treatment.
>
> Would you like to update your series? I'd suggest you keep patch
> #1 in place, as it's already probably reasonably well tested.
>

Sure, I'll leave that patch as #1, and add an additional patch per
field.  It will take me a week or two to find the time to get it all
together, but I'll keep working away at it.

-- 
Kevin Winchester
--
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/