linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] padata: Simplify sysfs cpumask and sequencing logic

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:26:03 +0800
From:   Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com>
To:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
CC:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <stone.xulei@...sion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] padata: Simplify sysfs cpumask and sequencing logic

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 02:17:32PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:06:40AM +0800, Wang Jinchao wrote:
> > Utilizing the WQ_SYSFS from workqueue to support sysfs
> > ======================================================
> >
> > Padata relies on workqueue, and since workqueue has already implemented
> > support for cpumask through WQ_SYSFS, we can reuse this functionality
> > and avoid redundant implementation.
> > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/workqueue.html#affinity-scopes
> 
> Keeping the existing padata sysfs paths seems best, as mentioned in the
> other thread.  
Symlinks can serve both purposes, keeping the original path and simplifying the code.
I will incorporate this in the subsequent patches.
> 
> > Using completion to ensure the sequencing of the 'serial()'
> > ===========================================================
> 
> I responded in the other RFC thread.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
The extensive changes in RFC v1 indeed made it challenging to read.
Thank you very much for your patience. In RFC v2, I only wrote the
core logic instead of lengthy patches,making it a true RFC.
I've carefully considered your and Steffen's feedback,
which will be addressed in RFC v3.

Thanks.