linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface

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: <CAJZ5v0hH1XiphdakYFPmHLL+hFKw2U3YNU9HSRxsdRUV6ZtM5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:38:08 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
        "Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU
 latency QoS interface

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:09 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net> wrote:
>
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net> wrote:
> >> >

[cut]

> >
> > And BTW, posting patches as RFC is fine even if they have not been
> > tested.  At least you let people know that you work on something this
> > way, so if they work on changes in the same area, they may take that
> > into consideration.
> >
>
> Sure, that was going to be the first RFC.
>
> > Also if there are objections to your proposal, you may save quite a
> > bit of time by sending it early.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that this series has clashed with the changes that
> > you were about to propose, but in this particular case in my view it
> > is better to clean up things and start over.
> >
>
> Luckily it doesn't clash with the second RFC I was meaning to send,
> maybe we should just skip the first?

Yes, please.

> Or maybe it's valuable as a curiosity anyway?

No, let's just focus on the latest one.

Thanks!