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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181206180552.GB3986@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 19:05:52 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Streamline MCE subsystem's naming

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:36:03PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > So the real question is, is there a signifcant class of MCE events that 
> > are not tied to the reporting channel which is per CPU (-ish ...) MCA 
> > banks?
> 
> Perhaps QPI/UPI interconnect errors?

Whatever, this is pure bikeshedding what we're doing right now. All the
errors are reported through the CPU's MCA banks and the argument whether
an error class which is maybe not really tied to the CPU, should dictate
which path to put the files in, does not make any sense to me.

The only argument which makes sense IMO is whether the path should be
short. :-)

And both

arch/x86/cpu/mce/
arch/x86/mce/

are short enough to me.

Now, the real question is, how do we want to place the rest of the
files/folders so that we can get rid of deeper directory structures.

If we say, we don't want to have .../cpu/... and put everything in
arch/x86/ then this answers the above question too.

IMO, of course.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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