From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fFklb-00023Z-O0 for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 07 May 2018 20:21:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 11:21:40 -0700 From: Andi Kleen Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 3/8] L1TFv3 1 Message-ID: <20180507182140.GD4050@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <15668abaeb581d8d0ff089eb7643999752b10118.1525403858.git.ak@linux.intel.com> <98369c74-3d2d-c27f-d3bd-7d55edb11378@suse.cz> <20180507134108.GB4050@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: > IOW, you know it's a mess and because you can't be bothered to clean it up, > you add open coded crap to it, so others have more work to clean it up later. It's not about being bothered, it's about keeping a clean and simple and self contained and straight forward patchkit that only does one thing and can be easily understood without diving into all kinds of unrelated stuff. If I add a numa balancing dependency the cognitive load for every reviewer and later applier will go up by at least an order of magnitude, with very little benefit. I know doing patchkits like this is out of fashion, but I'm old school in that regard. It's only two users that could be replaced with pte_protnone() anyways, you're being overly dramatic. The third user is custom and couldn't be expressed with pte_protnone(). -Andi