linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] EDAC/igen6: Add polling support and allow setting edac_op

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: <20241106120517.GDZytbffKlnZxkSEsj@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:05:17 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Orange Kao <orange@...en.io>
Cc: tony.luck@...el.com, qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com, james.morse@....com,
	orange@...sy.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] EDAC/igen6: Add polling support and allow setting
 edac_op_state

On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:35:44AM +0000, Orange Kao wrote:
> I would like to propose that we keep the edac_op_state as a module
> parameter. Because it would allow users (regardless of CPU SKU) to test
> different options on their machine without compiling their own

Are you talking about an actual use case where "users" really will do that
because there actually really is such a use case out there (If so, please do
tell because *no one* is setting that parameter and I'd prefer to remove it
everywhere in favor of automatic detection.)

or

are you talking about a potential,
it-would-be-good-to-but-I-don't-know-yet-whether-it-would-really-get-used
thing?

If latter, that third patch can remain out-of-tree until an actual use case
materializes and justifies it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette