linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] tick/nohz: Move tick_nohz_full

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: <908ce024-db79-ecb0-c47a-626227038411@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 07:31:04 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        "D Scott Phillips OS" <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
        <carl@...amperecomputing.com>, <lcherian@...vell.com>,
        <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>, <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        <xingxin.hx@...nanolis.org>, <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        <dfustini@...libre.com>, <amitsinght@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] tick/nohz: Move tick_nohz_full_mask declaration
 outside the #ifdef

Hi, Peter and James,

On 9/14/23 10:21, James Morse wrote:
> tick_nohz_full_mask lists the CPUs that are nohz_full. This is only
> needed when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined. tick_nohz_full_cpu() allows
> a specific CPU to be tested against the mask, and evaluates to false
> when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not defined.
> 
> The resctrl code needs to pick a CPU to run some work on, a new helper
> prefers housekeeping CPUs by examining the tick_nohz_full_mask. Hiding
> the declaration behind #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL forces all the users to
> be behind an ifdef too.
> 
> Move the tick_nohz_full_mask declaration, this lets callers drop the
> ifdef, and guard access to tick_nohz_full_mask with IS_ENABLED() or
> something like tick_nohz_full_cpu().
> 
> The definition does not need to be moved as any callers should be
> removed at compile time unless CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined.
> 
> CC: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>
> Tested-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>
> Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>

checkpatch.pl reports warning:
WARNING: 'Tested-by:' is the preferred signature form
#27:
Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>

The same warning is reported on all following patches in this series.

According to Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, "Tested-by" 
(instead of "Tested-By") is used.

Could you please fix the warnings?

Thanks.

-Fenghua