linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 15/16] driver/edac: enable Hygon support to AMD64 EDAC driver

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: <36de11c7-8448-2967-2032-ef31d8e8a979@hygon.cn>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:07:20 +0800
From:   Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com, mchehab@...nel.org,
        mikhail.jin@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/16] driver/edac: enable Hygon support to AMD64 EDAC
 driver

On 2018/8/21 21:04, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:26:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> But then I don't see the point of adding the Hygon vendor, since any
>> check can be simplified:
> 
> I think Hygon wanted to superficially show it is not really an AMD. For
> example, the Hygon thing doesn't do SME/SEV. AFAIK.
> 
> So we can just as well check only family but I'd say the vendor thing is
> laying the grounds for the future where reportedly it will differ more
> from an AMD. And then we can start splitting code more based on vendor
> and not look at family at all.
> 
> But for right now I think we should strive to keep the changes as small
> as possible and only do real splitting when they start adding new
> functionality. Which would mean having a hygon_edac.c too, for example.
> 
> All, IMHO, of course. Sharing code between vendors is always yucky.

Thanks for Boris's clarification.

It's hard to find the balance between short term(sharing codes) and long
term(splitting codes).
Current I think we'd better try to follow the following way:
For current version, we will try to minimize the modification and share
codes,
For later big modification, will try to split codes to make code path
more clear.

Regards
Pu Wen