[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10fef6af-785e-c76f-d89b-ec115dcf460a@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:51:12 -0800
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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
Hi Boris,
On 12/11/2018 12:43 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
I really appreciate your patience.
>
> Now, I'm trying to understand what you're telling me and I believe you
> mean what update_domains() does, yes?
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.
That subject line matches exactly the goal of this patch. Thank you very
much. Would you prefer that I send a new version with this subject line
or would you rather make the change yourself while applying this patch?
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists