linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] HiSilicon hip08 uncore PMU events additions

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]

Message-ID: <0492ebd9-f867-423d-034c-9fe1c74902e7@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:30:46 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
CC:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        <namhyung@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>, James Clark <James.Clark@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] HiSilicon hip08 uncore PMU events additions

>
>>>>>> The missing events were originally mentioned in
>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/14/645, when upstreaming the JSONs initially.
>
>>>>>> It also includes a fix for a DDRC eventname.
>
>>>>> Could I get these JSON updates picked up please? Maybe they were missed
>>>>> earlier. Let me know if I should re-post.
>
>>>> Looking at them now.
>
>>> It would be really good if somehow we managed to have someone from the
>>> ARM community to check and provide a Reviewed-by for those, i.e. someone
>>> else than the poster to look at it and check that its ok, would that be
>>> possible?
>
>> For this specific case, I'm not sure how much traction or value there would
>> be since we're just adding some missing events for custom IP.
>
> Someone else inside your organization?

For this, sure. Colleague Shaokun (cc'ed) provided me the metadata for 
these JSON additions, so when he returns from national vacation I can 
ask him to provide necessary tags.

  If nobody is available, then so
> be it, let that be clear in the JSON file (see below) and then I
> wouldn't be waiting for acks/reviewed-by messages for such cases.
>
>> But I do agree that more review of JSONs from the community is required - as
>> I brought up here regarding a recent addition:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/749a0b8e-2bfd-28f6-b34d-dc72ef3d3a74@huawei.com/
>>
>> Can we enforce that at least linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org and/or
>> get_maintainer.pl results is cc'ed on anything ARM specific as a start?
>
> I think this should be the case, would you be willing to add a note to
> that effect at the top of the JSON files?

Adding notes to JSONs would be painful unless the parser is updated to 
to filter them out. And, as I understand, the x86 JSONs are 
autogenerated, so that tooling would need to handle this also.

>
> And an extra note at tools/perf/pmu-events/README telling users to look
> at the json files to figure out what Reviewed-by tags are required for
> something to get merged? One extra Reviewed-by would be ok?Who would be
> the reviewers for each arch? Would that be at the top of the JSON file?

There is no per-arch JSON, and, in addition, I think that would be hard 
to formulate such formal rules.

As an alternative, how about just add a maintainers entry for reviewers 
per arch? As a start, I don't mind being added there for arm64:

--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -12767,6 +12767,10 @@ F:     arch/*/events/*
  F:     arch/*/events/*/*
  F:     tools/perf/

+PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
+R:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
+F:     tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64
+

Patches per-arch should have some nod/tag from a member of the 
respective list. Or at very least be cc'ed :)

Thanks,
John

>
> - Arnaldo
>
> .
>