[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5900da79-b21e-e41c-6348-d9b24cf65967@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:56:28 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...iainc.com>,
D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/24] x86/resctrl: Merge the CDP resources
Hi James,
On 5/19/2021 9:24 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to Reinette comments on v2. The major changes in v3 is a juggling
> of all the commit messages. One patch got merged into its parent, and
> the msr_param range thing got pulled out into its own patch. Otherwise
> changes are noted in the commit messages.
Thank you very much for reworking the commit messages. The additional
context do make these changes easier to digest.
On a high level the goal of these patches look good to me but the
patches themselves do have a few formatting issues and spelling mistakes
and while bisectability is a stated goal of this work I was surprised to
find that one patch ("x86/resctrl: Apply offset correction when config
is staged") cannot compile.
I started to document the formatting issues but found myself duplicating
a lot of what checkpatch.pl would already tell you. Could you please
ensure that this series gets a clean bill of health when using
"checkpatch.pl --strict"? I also recommend the codespell option ...
there are a few typos in this series that checkpatch.pl was able to pick
up. It would be more efficient to review this series from such a baseline.
Thank you
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists