linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] x86,cpu-hotplug: assign same CPU number to readded CPU

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:00:33 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, bp@...en8.de,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
	imammedo@...hat.com, huawei.libin@...wei.com,
	paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linn Crosetto <linn@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86,cpu-hotplug: assign same CPU number to readded
 CPU

On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 17:53 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> 于 14-9-16 上午11:56, Mike Galbraith 写道:
> > On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 10:44 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:21 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >>>> There is no response for two months since posting v4.
> >>>> What can I do for pushing the patch to upstream?
> >>> Looks to me like we have two patches floating about for more or less the
> >>> same problem, this one, and...
> >>>
> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/159
> >>>
> >>> ..this one, which you reviewed, and HP both reviewed and tested.
> >>>
> >>> We seem to kinda stuck with Boris having said don't diddle the
> >>> cpu_llc_shared_map, but HP/Intel saying that this map diddling fixes
> >>> their explosions.  If your alternative is preferred over diddling
> >>> cpu_llc_shared_map, perhaps HP/Intel can test/confirm that their
> >>> explosions stay gone?
> >> Well, Boris mentioned later in his email:
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/201
> >>
> >> And I agree with his assessment that both patches make sense.
> > Nonetheless, this just reeks of "department of redundancy department".
> > I have nothing against doing both really, but it does leave me wondering
> > if we would not then be merging the mask clearing "just because".
> 
> Maybe you miss my reply.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/40

Yes, I did.  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/