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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:02:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com> cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: auto poll/interrupt mode switch for CMC to stop CMC storm On Thu, 24 May 2012, Chen Gong wrote: > δΊ 2012/5/24 14:00, Borislav Petkov ει: > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0800, Chen Gong wrote: > >> Hi, Boris, when I write these codes I don't care if it is specific for > >> Intel or AMD. > > Well, but I do care so that when you leave and start doing something > > else, people after you can still read and maintain that code. > > > >> I just noticed it should be general for x86 platform and all related > >> codes are general too, which in mce.c, so I think it should be fine to > >> place the codes in mce.c. > > Are you kidding me? Only Intel has CMCI. > > > > Now, if some other vendor needs correctable errors interrupt rate > > throttling, they can carve it out, make it generic, and move it to mce.c. > > > > Otherwise, it belongs in mce_intel.c. For the same reason AMD error > > thresholding code belongs to mce_amd.c. > > > > Jeez. > > > Sorry, I'm really not familiar with AMD's CPU. But I still consider > these codes should be in > current place. Because the original poll timer logic is there, and my > patch is just the > extension for poll timer. Even if moving these codes to Intel specific > file, it should be > another patch to move whole logic including poll timer/CMCI handler to > Intel specific > file, do you agree? Not at all. See my other reply why this is fundamentaly wrong. Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists