linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86/resctrl: Re-arrange RFTYPE flags and add more comments

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: <46133263-e8d0-24ec-4bfa-b3ffc3566bd0@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 May 2023 12:33:16 -0500
From:   "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, corbet@....net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de
Cc:     fenghua.yu@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, paulmck@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        quic_neeraju@...cinc.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        chang.seok.bae@...el.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
        jmattson@...gle.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
        sandipan.das@....com, tony.luck@...el.com, james.morse@....com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bagasdotme@...il.com, eranian@...gle.com,
        christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, jarkko@...nel.org,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com, quic_jiles@...cinc.com,
        peternewman@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86/resctrl: Re-arrange RFTYPE flags and add more
 comments

Hi Reinette,

On 5/5/23 16:24, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 5/5/2023 1:40 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> On 5/4/2023 2:00 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Babu,
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2023 4:34 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>> Remove gaps in bit definitions of RFTYPE flags and add more comments
>>> Why is it necessary to remove gaps in the bit definitions?
>>
>> Removing the gaps is not necessary definitely. I thought adding
>> comments will help adding new flags in the future.
>>
> 
> I agree that removing the gaps are not necessary.
ok.

> 
>> If you want me to drop this whole patch, I am fine with it.> 
> 
> The comments may be useful. If you decide to keep it please review
> it for consistency. The comments should not increase confusion.
> For example,
> * in one instance you refer to "info" and "base" as components, in
>   another you refer to them as directories, which is confusing since
>   there is a "info" directory but no "base" directory.
> * related to previous item, the comments start by referring to the
>   "info" and "base" components but then the comments switch to
>   describing a "info directory structure and "group structure"
> * the separator (---) is used above a header in one instance and
>   below a header in another
> * in some places you use the syntax:
> 	--> <flag name> (<dir name>, <dir name>)
>   in other places you use:
> 	--> <flag name>
> 	   --> (<dir name>)
> 	   --> (<dir name>)
> 
>
sure. Will address this next revision.

Thanks
Babu