linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/24] x86/resctrl: Merge the CDP resources

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:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:04:33 +0100
From:   James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.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 Reinette,

On 05/06/2021 00:56, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 5/19/2021 9:24 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> 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.

Huh. I remember thinking I didn't need to retest the whole tree after some minor change,
evidently I was very wrong!


> 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"?

Sure. (I've become so accustomed to ignoring it due to its allergy to assembly, that I
don't bother running it)


> I also recommend the codespell
> option ... there are a few typos in this series that checkpatch.pl was able to pick up.

Aha, that's a new one, my existing way of doing that only works for commit messages.


> It
> would be more efficient to review this series from such a baseline.

Lookout for v4 on monday!


Thanks,

James