linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.19 08/48] riscv: dts: microchip: Add mpfs' topology information

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]

Message-ID: <YwDwwEXgGundXB1X@sashalap>
Date:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 10:33:36 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr,
        sudeep.holla@....com, Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.19 08/48] riscv: dts: microchip: Add mpfs'
 topology information

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 04:31:08PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
>On 14/08/2022 17:19, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 88d319c6abaeb37f0e2323275eaf57a8388e0265 ]
>>
>> The mpfs has no cpu-map node, so tools like hwloc cannot correctly
>> parse the topology. Add the node using the existing node labels.
>>
>+CC Greg
>
>Hey Sasha,
>Technically this is an optional property so I didn't mark any of
>the patches as CC: stable as they not really fixes. The plan to is
>to fix the hwloc problem at the source rather than papering over it
>with the dts:
>https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220715175155.3567243-1-mail@conchuod.ie/
>
>Those patches are delayed until after -rc1 as they weren't reviewed
>from the riscv side prior to the arm64 tree closing, but the plan is
>to backport those instead.
>
>I suppose there's no harm having these too, but I'll leave that up
>to the better judgement of others... What do you (plural) think?

I'll just drop these. Feel free to send us a note when the fix is
ready...

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha