linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/46] perf/x86/intel/cmt: add per-package locks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:00:44 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/46] perf/x86/intel/cmt: add per-package locks

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:

> > Also, "monr" is a horribly 'word'.
> 
> What makes it so bad? (honest question) . Some alternatives:
> 
> - res_mon, resm, rmon (Resource Monitor)
> - rmnode, rnode, rmon_node (Resource Monitoring node, similar to
> Resource Monitor ID, but to reflect that it's a node in a
> tree/hierarchy)
>  - rdt_mon, rdtm (something with RDT + Monitoring)
>  - ment, rdt_ment (Monitoring Entity)
> 
> Other suggestions?

The naming is the least of my worries right now. Before you start to rework
the series can we please get the information about:

    - what you want to achieve and why

    - the design of your approach

so we can avoid staring at another series of 40+ patches just to figure out
that something is wrong at the conceptual level?

We sort out the naming convention once we are done with the above.

Thanks,

	tglx