linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records

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: <20241018120414.00006c61@Huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:04:14 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: <shiju.jose@...wei.com>
CC: <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	<alison.schofield@...el.com>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <dave@...olabs.net>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
	<tanxiaofei@...wei.com>, <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:33:45 +0100
<shiju.jose@...wei.com> wrote:

> From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>
> 
> CXL spec rev 3.1 CXL Event Records has updated w.r.t CXL spec rev 3.0.
> Add updates for the above spec changes in the CXL events records and CXL
> trace events implementation.
> 
> Note: Please apply following fix patch first if not present.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/cxl/patch/20241014143003.1170-1-shiju.jose@huawei.com/
> 
> Shiju Jose (4):
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Common Event Record Format
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL General Media Event Record
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL DRAM Event Record
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Memory Module Event Record
> 
>  drivers/cxl/core/trace.h | 201 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  include/cxl/event.h      |  20 +++-
>  2 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 

Hi Shiju,

Why are these an RFC?  Seem in a good state to me and the
questions I'm seeing are naming stuff that to me doesn't
justify RFC status.

Jonathan