linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with static key

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: <20200619092307.3fc89312@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:23:07 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        Chris Redpath <chrid.redpath@....com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with
 static key

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:51:48 +0100
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:

> > On 18/06/20 20:55, Qais Yousef wrote:  
> > > There is a report that when uclamp is enabled, a netperf UDP test
> > > regresses compared to a kernel compiled without uclamp.
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200529100806.GA3070@suse.de/
> > >  
> > 
> > ISTR the perennial form for those is: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<message-id>  
> 
> The link is correct permalinnk from lore and contains the message-id as Peter
> likes and he has accepted this form before.
> 
> If you look closely you'll see that what you suggest is just moving 'lkml' to
> replace lore in the dns name and put an /r/. I don't see a need to enforce one
> form over the other as the one I used is much easier to get.

The two produce the same result, and I personally have used both. I'm
starting to move over to lore over lkml, as that seems to be becoming
the more popular form.

> 
> If Peter really insists I'll be happy to change.

But I agree, if Peter is insistent on lkml over lore, then it really
doesn't make a difference to switch it. As I said, they are identical
in what they produce.

-- Steve