linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/25] openrisc: add cache way information to cpuinfo

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: <12dd3b5a-08fc-b397-b298-490f72610a5f@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:45:24 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>, linux@...ck-us.net,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olof Kindgren <olof.kindgren@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/25] openrisc: add cache way information to cpuinfo



On 14/03/17 13:11, Stefan Kristiansson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:08:33PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com> wrote:
>>> From: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>
>>>
>>> Motivation for this is to be able to print the way information
>>> properly in print_cpuinfo(), instead of hardcoding it to one.
>>>
>>
>> Any particular reason not to use generic cacheinfo sysfs infrastructure ?
>>
> 
> No reason as far as I can see, the creation of this patch predates the
> generic cacheinfo sysfs infrastructure.
> 
> The patch itself doesn't add cache information to cpuinfo though,
> only corrects a bug in the information that is already there.
> 
> We should look into exposing the info in the generic cache info sysfs
> and potentially removing the information from cpuinfo.
> 

Ah OK, sorry I mistook it as a new addition rather than bug fox.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep