linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL V2] Changes for 4.8

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: <453f38f0-be61-e0e0-b1e6-6d8d12e72076@suse.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:50:24 +0200
From:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL V2] Changes for 4.8

On 27/07/16 19:03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> Support calling functions on dedicated physical cpu
>>
>> Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to
>> be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When
>> running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot
>> parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling
>> decisions.
>>
>> This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily
>> pin a (virtual) cpu to a dedicated physical cpu for executing above
>> mentioned functions on that specific cpu. The drivers (dcdbas and i8k)
>> requiring this functionality are modified accordingly.
>>
>> Unfortunately 2 of the 6 patches got no Acks as the maintainers didn't
>> react in spite of multiple pings and resends. The core modification in
>> the scheduler got an Ack from Peter and multiple tests showed no
>> regressions.
>>
>> As the series is touching multiple subsystems I couldn't find anyone
>> willing to take the series via his tree (I tried Ingo, Thomas, Peter).
> 
> Thanks, this explanation was exactly what I was looking for.
> 
> I'm still at two minds whether I'd prefer this kind of thing to come
> in through the x86 maintainers, or possibly the virtualization people
> who would actually use this. Or whether I'll just take it directly.

Okay.

Ingo already signaled he would be willing to take the series into one
of the -tip trees in case you don't want to take it.

I already asked David Vrabel whether he would take it via the Xen tree
and he was a little bit hesitant as some non-Xen patches got no Ack.
OTOH I'm one of the Xen maintainers, so taking the patches from me would
be fine regarding your statement you'd take the patches from "the
virtualization people". :-)

> I will take another look later when I've gotten rid of the big initial
> flood of pull requests.

Thanks,

Juergen