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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:10:37 +0000 From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> To: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...iumnetworks.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:30:29AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:50:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote: > > > +/* node attribute depending on number of NUMA nodes */ > > > +static ssize_t node_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > > > + char *page) > > > +{ > > > + if (NODES_SHIFT) > > > + return sprintf(page, "config:16-%d\n", 16 + NODES_SHIFT - 1); > > > > If NODES_SHIFT is 1, you'll end up with "config:16-16", which might confuse > > userspace. > > So should I use "config:16" in that case? Is it OK to use this also for > NODES_SHIFT=0 ? If you only need one bit, then "config:16" is the right thing to do. Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists