linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] arch_topology: Drop LLC identifier stash from the CPU topology

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: <fab8ce3b-2c56-862e-afcd-9f05594c6044@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jun 2022 14:44:04 +0800
From:   Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Qing Wang <wangqing@...o.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] arch_topology: Drop LLC identifier stash from
 the CPU topology

Hi Sudeep,

On 6/1/22 8:06 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 11:35:20AM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On 5/25/22 4:14 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Since the cacheinfo LLC information is used directly in arch_topology,
>>> there is no need to parse and store the LLC ID information only for
>>> ACPI systems in the CPU topology.
>>>
>>> Remove the redundant LLC ID from the generic CPU arch_topology information.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/base/arch_topology.c  | 1 -
>>>    include/linux/arch_topology.h | 1 -
>>>    2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> How about merge the changes to PATCH[08/16]? I don't see why we need put
>> the changes into separate patches.
>>
> 
> It took a while to remember as I was with the same opinion as yours but
> decided to split them for one reason: to keep arch specific change in a
> separate patch(if that becomes a need due to some conflict or some other
> non-technical reason)
> 

Ok. Thanks for the explanation, which sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Gavin