linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Streamline MCE subsystem's naming

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: <20181205170006.GK29510@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 18:00:06 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Streamline MCE subsystem's naming

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:30:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Would it make sense to organize it a bit more and separate out vendor 
> specific functionality:
> 
>   mce/cpu/intel.c
>   mce/cpu/intel-p5.c
>   mce/cpu/amd.c
>   mce/cpu/winchip.c

That's too fine-grained IMO and look at the path we'd get then:

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/cpu/intel.c
		^^^     ^^^

which brings me to something we already talked about: the "kernel" part
of the arch/x86/ paths. See this thread:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140114185802.GB29871@pd.tnic

from 2014. We practically agreed there that "kernel/" is redundant as it
all is kernel. So maybe we should start moving stuff up into arch/x86/
and then kill kernel/ eventually.

> This way there's a clear separation between low level, vendor specific 
> MCE logic and higher level MCE logic.
> 
> mce/apei.c, if this is an Intel-only feature, could perhaps become 
> mce/cpu/intel-apei.c?

Yeah, I think the pile in mce/ is pretty succinct now. We can always
separate it more later, if it starts to hurt but right now it is ok,
IMO.

> Anyway, your patch is fine too, so whichever subset you decide to use:
> 
>   Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.