linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cxl: Rename ACPI_CEDT_CFMWS_RESTRICT

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: <672d329119d63_10bb7294cc@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:35:13 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>, "Huang, Ying"
	<ying.huang@...el.com>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Dave Jiang
	<dave.jiang@...el.com>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Cameron
	<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, "Gregory
 Price" <gourry@...rry.net>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira
 Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>, Ben
 Cheatham <benjamin.cheatham@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl: Rename ACPI_CEDT_CFMWS_RESTRICT_TYPE2/TYPE3

Alison Schofield wrote:
[..]
> > I think so too.  However, I prefer to keep this patch just mechanic
> > renaming and do these changes in another patch.  Do you agree?
> > 
> 
> I don't know. I was just questioning where and how far the naming scheme
> needs to change.
> 
> Maybe Jonathan, as the Suggested-by, can chime in and move this ahead.

I feel like we are going to be living with the ghosts of the original
"Type2 / Type3" naming problem for the rest of the subsystem's lifespan
especially since they were encoded in the ABI and ABI is forever.

I am not opposed to this localized rename in drivers/cxl/acpi.c on
principal, but in terms of incremental value relative to the thrash, it's
questionable.

For example changes to include/acpi/actbl1.h need to be chased through
ACPICA, at which point is this rename really worth it?