linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 31/31] x86/resctrl: Move the resctrl filesystem code to /fs/resctrl

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]

Message-ID: <62d59c45-c154-43ed-86ad-c2d2461054b6@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:59:43 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
 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>,
 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,
 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,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Rex Nie <rex.nie@...uarmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 31/31] x86/resctrl: Move the resctrl filesystem code to
 /fs/resctrl

Hi Babu,

On 17/04/2024 15:43, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 03:44:48PM -0500, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> James/Dave,
>> This is a huge change. Can this be broken into multiple patches?
>> It will be a major task in case we need to bisect to pinpoint any issues
>> later.

> I guess this might be possible, though when moving groups of static
> functions around that refer to each other it might be more trouble than
> it is worth.
> 
> I'll need to discuss with James.
> 
> Either way, I think this patch will need to rebuilt when spinning v2 of
> this series.  I've been rebasing it by hand, which is not exactly
> foolproof!
> 
> It ought to be possible to break this up into one patch per affected .c
> file at least, if people feel that it is worthwhile.

That is how I keep it in my tree - but the intermediate entries don't build, so its only
useful for keeping my sanity.

I don't think the intermediate points are useful, it would be better to spend the time
generating confidence that this thing doesn't introduce any functional changes - if it
does, it should be reverted.

To that end:
So far I've done this by hand, but recently cooked a python script to generate this. I'll
include this in the next version instead. Hopefully this is a better way do demonstrate
'nothing up my sleeve' - it certainly makes it easier to regenerate this after other
series have been merged.

Obviously I'm not expecting this to be merged as is - as suggested in the cover letter we
need to find a least disruptive moment.


Thanks,

James