linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/intel_rdt: info file support for MBA prepare

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 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:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:34:14 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     vikas.shivappa@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, andi.kleen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/intel_rdt: info file support for MBA prepare

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote:

> As a preparatory patch to MBA info file setup, generalize the info file
> setup to have the option to choose between different set of files.
> Although multiple cache resources have same info files, Memory resources
> have different set of info files. That way we have the option to choose
> between memory resource and cache resource info files.

Sigh.

> @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ struct rftype {
>   * @default_ctrl:		Specifies default cache cbm or mem b/w percent.
>   * @min_cbm_bits:		Minimum number of consecutive bits to be set
>   *				in a cache bit mask
> + * @info_files:		resctrl info files for the resource
> + * @infofiles_len:		Number of info files

len == length, nr == number. No? Too intuitive, right?

And no, not infofiles_nr. It wants to be nr_infofiles. And while at it
please either use infofiles or info_files, but not a mixture of
both. Random underscores are not enhancing readability at all.

> +void rdt_get_cache_infofile(struct rdt_resource *r)
> +{
> +	r->info_files = &res_cache_info_files[0];

What's wrong with

        r->info_files = res_cache_info_files;

Nothing, but it would be too easy to read. This is not the obfuscated
c-code contest.

> +	r->infofiles_len = ARRAY_SIZE(res_cache_info_files);

Thanks,

	tglx