linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] openrisc: use device tree to determine present cpus

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: <20210131212752.GG2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:27:52 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
To:     Jan Henrik Weinstock <jan.weinstock@...h-aachen.de>
Cc:     geert@...ux-m68k.org, jonas@...thpole.se,
        stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] openrisc: use device tree to determine present cpus

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Jan Henrik Weinstock wrote:
> On 31/01/2021 00:03, Stafford Horne wrote:
> 
> > This looks good, one small comment below.  Can you send the next patch as a v2?
> > 
> > Using 'git format-patch -v2 ...'
> 
> Sorry, was not aware of that, will do better next time!
> 
> > Should we warn on the else case?
> 
> I think it is fine for the kernel to have room for more CPUs than are
> actually present (i.e. NR_CPUs > present_cpus is OK). Other Archs do not
> show a warning in this case either, therefore I also omitted it.

Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>

I can queue this for 5.12 when you send v2.

-Stafford