linux-kernel - RE: [Patch v3] storvsc: setup 1:1 mapping between hardware queue and CPU queue

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: <DM5PR21MB0137ABFD8778BC94EAFF835ED7BA0@DM5PR21MB0137.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:45:09 +0000
From:   Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
        "longli@...uxonhyperv.com" <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Patch v3] storvsc: setup 1:1 mapping between hardware queue and
 CPU queue

From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:35 PM
> >>
> >> Changes:
> >> v2: rely on default upper layer function to map queues. (suggested by
> >> Ming Lei
> >> <tom.leiming@...il.com>)
> >> v3: use num_present_cpus() instead of num_online_cpus(). Hyper-v
> >> doesn't support hot-add CPUs. (suggested by Michael Kelley
> >> <mikelley@...rosoft.com>)
> >
> >I've mostly seen the "Changes:" section placed below the "---" so that it
> >doesn't clutter up the commit log.  But maybe there's not a strong
> >requirement one way or the other as I didn't find anything called out in the
> >"Documentation/process"
> >directory.
> 
> Should I resubmit the patch (but keep it v3)?
> 

I would say do a quick resubmit as v4 so there's no confusion.

Michael