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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810032144120.27796@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:45:01 +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

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/29/2018 10:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> When you do deal with this series could you please also include the
> final patch ("x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements")? I
> noticed that patches 1/6 to 5/6 have been merged into x86/cache in
> tip.git and then some other work on top of it. It is not clear to me why
> 6/6 was omitted and this fix does require it.

Hmm. That was not intentional. /me goes to rumage around.

Thanks,

	tglx