linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for Intel RDT

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]

Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:37:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vikas.shivappa@...el.com,
	x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, matt.fleming@...el.com, will.auld@...el.com,
	kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] x86/intel_rdt: Implement scheduling support for
 Intel RDT

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> > +static inline void intel_rdt_sched_in(void)
> > +{
> > +	if (static_key_false(&rdt_enable_key))
> > +		__intel_rdt_sched_in();
> 
> So if the enable_key is FALSE we call the RDT stuff? I might be
> missing something important, but this does not make any sense and I
> have to ask how that whole stuff has been tested.

Bah. That static key API is really designed for maximal confusion. The
above is correct, but a comment might not be the worst thing.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/