linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v11 1/8] x86/resctrl: Prepare for new domain scope

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: <SJ1PR11MB608303EA4CD81FB434CC0507FCB3A@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:49:04 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     "babu.moger@....com" <babu.moger@....com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC:     Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.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 v11 1/8] x86/resctrl: Prepare for new domain scope

> > +static int get_domain_id_from_scope(int cpu, enum resctrl_scope scope)
> > +{
> > +   switch (scope) {
> > +   case RESCTRL_L2_CACHE:
> > +   case RESCTRL_L3_CACHE:
> > +           return get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(cpu, scope);
> > +   default:
> > +           break;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   return -EINVAL;
> > +}
>
> This function is meanigfull when you introduce node scope RESCTRL_NODE.
>
> Can you please move this to patch 5?

Code has been this way since v5. I'll note your opinion and if others agree I'll
move it. But I think this is a reasonable part of the first step moving away from
purely cache scope for domains.

-Tony