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: <BYAPR21MB1688C273172834D7107F6F22D750A@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:20:46 +0000
From:   "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/irq: Add hardcoded hypervisor interrupts to
 /proc/stat

From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:07 AM
> 
> On 2/27/23 10:46, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > index 766ffe3..9f668d2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> > @@ -211,6 +211,13 @@ u64 arch_irq_stat_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_THRESHOLD
> >  	sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_threshold_count;
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_HV_CALLBACK_VECTOR
> > +	sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_callback_count;
> > +#endif
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV)
> > +	sum += irq_stats(cpu)->irq_hv_reenlightenment_count;
> > +	sum += irq_stats(cpu)->hyperv_stimer0_count;
> > +#endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
> >  	sum += per_cpu(mce_exception_count, cpu);
> >  	sum += per_cpu(mce_poll_count, cpu);
> 
> This seems fine, especially since arch_show_interrupts() has them.  But,
> what's with the "#if IS_ENABLED" versus the plain #ifdef?  Is there some
> difference I'm missing?  Why not just be consistent with the other code
> and use a plain #ifdef for both?

Dave --

With Sean's explanation for #if IS_ENABLED, are you OK with giving this
an ACK as an x86 maintainer?   This patch has been hanging around for a
while now ...

Michael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ