linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/25] x86/mcheck: Split threshold_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 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: <20161107151459.jgb7mpfyb3cmppza@linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:14:59 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rt@...utronix.de,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/25] x86/mcheck: Split threshold_cpu_callback into two
 callbacks

On 2016-11-07 16:07:45 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 02:25:01PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > This moves it 1:1 (well, more or less). Wouldn't you prefer doing it as
> > separate patch/change?
> 
> Ontop of all of yours so that you don't have to redo yours?

No. It is a separate thing so I would prefer it in a separate patch.
However if you are the MCE person in charge here and nobody disagrees I
have no problem to suck that into the patch and update remaining queue
if necessary.

> Thanks.

Sebastian