[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88fbd6ba-6118-4a80-980b-122dac5b4d39@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:16:05 -0600
From: "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Drew Fustini <dfustini@...libre.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15-RFC 5/8] x86/resctrl: Add "NODE" as an option for
resource scope
Hi Tony,
On 2/9/24 13:23, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:29:03AM -0600, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> This patch probably needs to be merged with with patch 7.
>
> If it just added RESCTRL_NODE to the enum and the switch() I'd
> agree (as patch 7 is where RESCTRL_NODE first used). But this
> patch also adds the sanity checks on scope where it has to be
> a cache level.
>
> Patch 7 is already on the big side (119 lines added to core.c).
>
> If you really think this series needs to cut back the
> number of patches, I could move the sanity check pieces
> from here to patch 3 (where the enum is introduced) and
> just the RESCTRL_NODE bits to patch 7.
No. You dont have to cut back on number of patches. I think it is easy to
review if these changes are merged with patch 7.
--
Thanks
Babu Moger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists