linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "cpu/hotplug: Ignore pm_wakeup_pending() for disable_nonboot

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: <20200429123236.7iqeon4emnlriyc4@e107158-lin>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:32:37 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Todd E Brandt <todd.e.brandt@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "cpu/hotplug: Ignore pm_wakeup_pending() for
 disable_nonboot_cpus()"

On 04/29/20 12:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I would do this the other way around:
> > >
> > > 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
> > >    enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
> >
> > All of this in a single patch?
> 
> Well, why not?

I don't mind, was just clarifying. Usually it's requested to split patches :)

> 
> Calling freeze_secondary_cpus() directly causes disable_nonboot_cpus()
> to be unused (and so it can be dropped in the same patch) and it also
> introduces a name mismatch between freeze_ and enable_, which IMO
> needs to be addressed right away (also in the same patch).
> 
> > > 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
> >
> > I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it instead.
> 
> IMO the revert is just an extra step with no real value, so why do it?

Works for me. Will send v2 ASAP.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef