linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination with perf

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]

Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:56:28 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        gavin.hindman@...el.com, jithu.joseph@...el.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination
 with perf

Reinette,

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I interpreted Thomas and Peter's responses to mean that there are no
> objections for this to be included in v4.19 as a fix.
> 
> If I understand the tip branches correctly the core patch seems to be
> headed to v4.19 while the rest (excluding the final patch
> "x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements") are headed to v4.20.
> 
> Have you decided against including this into v4.19 or did I
> misunderstand the responses and/or branches?

I did not decide anything yet. It's not going into -rc6 as it's not yet
through next and the other standard testing.

I'm also looking at the other set of RDT fixes, which obviously want to go
as well. So not sure how to deal with all of that.

Thanks,

	tglx