[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB6083578781B19FC3111BEC32FCD72@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:31:37 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
CC: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, "Wieczor-Retman, Maciej"
<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, "Drew
Fustini" <dfustini@...libre.com>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v21 14/18] x86/resctrl: Fill out rmid_read structure for
smp_call*() to read a counter
>> Or do they serve as useful hints to human readers of the code?
>
> You are of course welcome to keep those you find useful to readers of the
> code. My goals with this suggestion was to (a) stop passing garbage in
> struct rmid_read fields, (b) use struct rmid_read consistently.
Reinette,
I dug through the code and found only two existing redundant assignments:
rr->val = 0; (in mon_event_read())
and:
rr.first = false; (in mbm_update())
plus a third added by my patch 14:
rr.ci = NULL; (in mbm_update())
None of them seem particularly helpful hints, so I'm dropping
all three in the next rev. of the series.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists