[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181211204310.GQ27375@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:43:10 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
gavin.hindman@...el.com, jithu.joseph@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/intel_rdt: Ensure usage of CPUs are locked while
needed
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02:08AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I just wanted to emphasize that it is not the schemata writing that
> needs to be protected, but instead the pseudo-locking code that runs
> after schemata programming that needs to run on a particular CPU. The
> new patch subject could be interpreted to mean the former ... but that
> is starting to sound like nitpicking by me.
Nah, that's not nitpicking - it is important that we sort out stuff
fully before committing.
Now, I'm trying to understand what you're telling me and I believe you
mean what update_domains() does, yes?
And I guess a more fitting subject in that case could be:
x86/intel_rdt: Ensure a CPU remains online for the region's pseudo-locking sequence
or so, and then the commit message explains in more detail what that
title actually means. :)
Hmmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists