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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:56:38 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <>
To:	Toshi Kani <>
Cc:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
	Wanpeng Li <>,
	Linn Crosetto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86,cpu-hotplug: assign same CPU number to readded

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...
> > 
> >
> > 
> > ..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:
> 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".


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists