linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if max_spare

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:39:44 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
        Hank <han.lin@...iatek.com>,
        Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com>,
        Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if
 max_spare_cap is 0


* Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:

> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> I will wait for the maintainers to see if they would like a v5 to address 
> the nitpicks or it's actually good enough and happy to pick this up. I 
> think the commit messages explain the problem clear enough and doesn't 
> warrant sending a new version. But happy to do so if there's insistence 
> :-)

Yeah, please always do that: sensible review replies with actionable 
feedback cause a semi-atomatic "mark this thread as read, there will be a 
next version" reflexive action from maintainers, especially if a series is 
in its 4th iteration already...

Thanks,

	Ingo