linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 6.19 0/4] Revise the EM YNL spec to be clearer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <849b576e-9563-42ae-bd5c-756fb6dfd8de@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:44:21 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
Cc: kernel-dev@...lia.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, horms@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, pavel@...nel.org,
 donald.hunter@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 6.19 0/4] Revise the EM YNL spec to be clearer

Hi Changwoo,

On 12/25/25 04:01, Changwoo Min wrote:
> This patch set addresses all the concerns raised at [1] to make the EM YNL spec
> clearer. It includes the following changes:
> 
> - Fix the lint errors (1/4).
> - Rename em.yaml to dev-energymodel.yaml (2/4).  “dev-energymodel” was used
>    instead of “device-energy-model”, which was originally proposed [2], because
>    the netlink protocol name cannot exceed GENL_NAMSIZ(16). In addition, docs
>    strings and flags attributes were added.
> - Change cpus' type from string to u64 array of CPU ids (3/4).
> - Add dump to get-perf-domains in the EM YNL spec (4/4). A user can fetch
>    either information about a specific performance domain with do or information
>    about all performance domains with dump.
> 
> This can be tested using the tool, tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py, for example,
> with the following commands:
> 
>    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
>       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
>       --dump get-perf-domains
>    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
>       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
>       --do get-perf-domains --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
>    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
>       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
>       --do get-perf-table --json '{"perf-domain-id": 0}'
>    $> tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py \
>       --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/dev-energymodel.yaml \
>       --subscribe event  --sleep 10
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD4GDZy-aeWsiY=-ATr+Y4PzhMX71DFd_mmdMk4rxn3YG8U5GA@mail.gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0gpYQwC=1piaX-PNoyeoYJ7uw=DtAGdTVEXAsi4bnSdbA@mail.gmail.com/

My apologies, I've missed those conversations (not the best season).

So what would be the procedure here for the review?
Could Folks from netlink help here?

I will do my bit for the EM related stuff (to double-check them).

Regards,
Lukasz