linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] powerpc/smp: Implement cpu_to_coregroup

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: <87tuxn53ee.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 21:29:13 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] powerpc/smp: Implement cpu_to_coregroup_id

Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> * Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> [2020-07-31 18:02:21]:
>
>> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > Lookup the coregroup id from the associativity array.
>
> Thanks Michael for all your comments and inputs.
>
>> It's slightly strange that this is called in patch 9, but only properly
>> implemented here in patch 10.
>> 
>> I'm not saying you have to squash them together, but it would be good if
>> the change log for patch 9 mentioned that a subsequent commit will
>> complete the implementation and how that affects the behaviour.
>
> I probably got influenced by few LKML community members who always add a
> stub and implement the gory details in a subsequent patch. I will surely add
> the change log in patch 9 about the subsequent patches.

That's OK, it's a valid way to do things, and can be good for keeping
the size of individual patches down to make them easier to review.

But yeah a mention in the change log of the preceeding patch is helpful
for anyone looking at that commit on its own in the future.

cheers