[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200123044514.GA2453000@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:45:15 -0500
From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 07:53:59PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
>
> + split_lock_ac=
> + [X86] Enable split lock detection
More bike-shedding: I actually don't get Sean's suggestion to rename
this to split_lock_ac [1]. If split lock detection is able to trigger
some other form of fault/trap we just change the implementation to cope,
we would not want to change the command line argument that enables it,
so split_lock_detect is more informative?
And if the concern is the earlier one [2], then surely everything should
be renamed sld -> slac?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200114055521.GI14928@linux.intel.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191122184457.GA31235@linux.intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists