linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpupower : Handle set and info subcommands for powerpc

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

Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:16:41 +0200
From:   Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:     Abhishek <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpupower : Handle set and info subcommands for powerpc

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:43:40 AM CEST Abhishek wrote:
> Hi Shuah,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Few comments below.

...

> Since these two options are not being used by any other architecture
> except x86, I suggest these options should not even be shown for
> other architecture. So we can do something like this in cpupower.c :
> 
> static struct cmd_struct commands[] = {
>           .............
> +#if defined (__x86_64__) || defined (__i386__)
>          { "set",        cmd_set,        1    },
>          { "info",        cmd_info,        0    },
> +#endif
>          ..............
> 
> Is this Okay?

No, I expected you to add something meaningful for Power case...

Just kidding. If this works without any side-effects in not x86 case, this 
approach seem to be the best solution for now.

Thanks.

  Thomas