linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] powercap: Add Power Limit4 support

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: <20200727121316.GS3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:13:16 +0300
From:   "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powercap: Add Power Limit4 support

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 01:46:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:38 PM Sumeet Pawnikar
> <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > Modern Intel Mobile platforms support power limit4 (PL4), which is
> > the SoC package level maximum power limit (in Watts). It can be used
> > to preemptively limits potential SoC power to prevent power spikes
> > from tripping the power adapter and battery over-current protection.
> > This patch enables this feature by exposing package level peak power
> > capping control to userspace via RAPL sysfs interface. With this,
> > application like DTPF can modify PL4 power limit, the similar way
> > of other package power limit (PL1).
> > As this feature is not tested on previous generations, here it is
> > enabled only for the platform that has been verified to work,
> > for safety concerns.
> 
> Queued up as 5.9 material ->
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> 
> -> with this tag removed, because the only case in which you can
> include an S-o-b from someone else is when you also add a From:
> pointing to that person.  IOW, you add a From: with a matching S-o-b
> from someone else and you can add your own S-o-b to that.
> 
> In this particular case, the C-d-b tag is sufficient to make a record
> of somebody else's contribution to a patch carrying a From: header
> that points to you (ie. your patch).

Rafael, it looks like it contradicts documentation. I mean your amendment.
SoB is specifically required to be coupled with Co-developed-by. That said,
both or none are acceptable. (I don't consider the chain of SoB when it goes
thru maintainers)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko