linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/29] x86,fs/resctrl: Rename some L3 specific functions

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: <f28541fd-16e5-4216-b43f-7a79639cf56d@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 20:32:09 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@...dia.com>, "Maciej
 Wieczor-Retman" <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>, Anil Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/29] x86,fs/resctrl: Rename some L3 specific
 functions

Hi Tony,

On 5/21/25 3:50 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> All monitor events used to be connected to the L3 resource so
> it was OK for function names to be generic. But this will cause
> confusion with additional events tied to other resources.
> 
> Rename functions that are only used for L3 features:

This does not rename all functions that are only used for L3 features.
Could you please add criteria used to decide which ones to rename?

> 
> arch_mon_domain_online()	-> arch_l3_mon_domain_online()
> mon_domain_free()		-> l3_mon_domain_free()

This separates the alloc and free partner functions even more.
The partner, while not completely symmetrical, is arch_domain_mbm_alloc().
How about naming arch_domain_mbm_alloc() -> l3_mon_domain_mbm_alloc()
to at least be closer?

> domain_setup_mon_state()	-> domain_setup_l3_mon_state

nit: domain_setup_l3_mon_state -> domain_setup_l3_mon_state()

This breaks symmetry with domain_destroy_mon_state(). Can domain_destroy_mon_state()
be renamed to domain_destroy_l3_mon_state()?

Reinette