linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP

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: <68D62BB9-8F8A-4269-AF7C-F568AE093A6D@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 12:16:44 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "Kang, Shan" <shan.kang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR

On June 19, 2023 11:47:08 AM PDT, "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com> wrote:
>> > To me it's better to keep the changes in one patch, thus the
>> > differences are more obvious.
>> 
>> The rename to vector_schedule_cleanup() can be obviously done first.
>
>Okay, it's a bit wired to me to rename before any actual code logic change.
>

Weird or not, that's the established practice.

However, if you think about it, it makes sense: that way your code logic patch doesn't contain a bunch of names which will almost immediately be outdated. That is *really* confusing when you are going back through the git history, for example.

>> 
>> > We need a second patch to do vector cleanup in lapic_offline() in case
>> > the vector cleanup timer has not expired.
>> 
>> Right. I was lazy and just put a WARN_ON() there under the assumption that you
>> will figure it out.
>
>I see that, as your changes to lapic_offline() are completely new.
>
>> But a second patch?
>> 
>> We don't switch things over into a broken state first and then fix it up afterwards.
>
>Make sense!
>