From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0100 Subject: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree In-Reply-To: <20170926124536.GA11192@arm.com> References: <20170926124536.GA11192@arm.com> Message-ID: <20170926131525.GE15480@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Greg, > > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64 > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2 > > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64") > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what > is being exposed to userspace here. Seconded. Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very* careful review. I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties. Thanks, Mark. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S969148AbdIZNQz (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:16:55 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34122 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965948AbdIZNQy (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:16:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Will Deacon Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, fschnizlein@suse.com, trenn@suse.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux@armlinux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree Message-ID: <20170926131525.GE15480@leverpostej> References: <20170926124536.GA11192@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170926124536.GA11192@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Greg, > > We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64 > and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2 > > ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64") > Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review > it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion > started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what > is being exposed to userspace here. Seconded. Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very* careful review. I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties. Thanks, Mark.