linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/perf: hisi: Add driver for HiSilicon PCIe PMU

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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:37:19 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     "liuqi (BA)" <liuqi115@...wei.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:     "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers/perf: hisi: Add driver for HiSilicon PCIe
 PMU

On 13/04/2021 10:12, liuqi (BA) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I do wonder why we even need maintain pcie_pmu->cpumask
>>>>
>>>> Can't we just use cpu_online_mask as appropiate instead?
>>
>> ?
> Sorry, missed it yesterday.
> It seems that cpumask is always same as cpu_online_mask, So do we need 
> to reserve the cpumask sysfs interface?

I'm not saying that we don't require the cpumask sysfs interface. I am 
just asking why you maintain a separate cpumask, when, as I said, they 
seem the same.

Thanks,
John