linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] xen: Fix x86 sched

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <63de5590-ae31-8627-9443-73fb0c8c2a8f@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:29:58 -0500
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Hans van Kranenburg <hans@...rrie.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        x86@...nel.org, sstabellini@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xen: Fix x86 sched_clock() interface for xen

On 1/16/19 10:29 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 16/01/2019 16:07, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 1/16/19 9:33 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2019 14:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 08:50:13AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1650,13 +1650,14 @@ void xen_callback_vector(void)
>>>>>                         xen_have_vector_callback = 0;
>>>>>                         return;
>>>>>                 }
>>>>> -               pr_info("Xen HVM callback vector for event delivery is
>>>>> enabled\n");
>>>>> +               if (!silent)
>>>>> +                       pr_info("Xen HVM callback vector for event
>>>>> delivery is enabled\n");
>>>> How about replacing pr_info() with pr_info_once()?
>>> What a nice and simple idea!
>>>
>>> Extra patch or V4?
>>>
>>
>> I can add this while committing, I don't think it's worth a whole new patch.
>>
>> One outstanding question I have is whether anything needs to be added to
>> the commit message (Thomas had some questions)
> He didn't react to my explanation. I'm interpreting that as him being
> fine with my explanation, which I believe is not suitable to be added
> to the commit message.

OK. Applied to (now properly named) for-linus-5.0

-boris