linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 3/8] x86/resctrl: Split the rdt

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: <SJ1PR11MB6083D9AA22033235210BD847FCC3A@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 22:14:38 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
CC:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 3/8] x86/resctrl: Split the rdt_domain structure

> > But this seems like it is a lot of churn to avoid having separate
> > functions to search control and monitor lists. Each a clone of
> > the existing ~24 line rdt_find_domain() with just the type changed
> > for the return value and the list travsersal.
>
> Yes. Sorry, I did not realize this implication during the earlier
> discussions.
>
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> It sounds to me as though you are advocating for open coding
> rdt_find_ctrl_domain() and rdt_find_mon_domain()? That sounds good
> to me.

Reinette,

While there is some churn, it maybe isn't all that bad.  I also ran the open
coding case and having a pair of 24-line functions one after the other with
just two trivial lines changed between them is unlikely to get past the x86
maintainers without running this same conversation again.

-Tony