From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17750C433FE for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 23:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343579AbiCNXLv (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:11:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40866 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230021AbiCNXLu (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:11:50 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64273BF8E; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:10:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1647299440; x=1678835440; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=6C9nVg8jyii5VHo88KHjPTiSG9eWD7pgA09gtw2HDFo=; b=RsAX6IxqipUuwfY7L5im2eSk7jSsDzRGNpSRuCJNOK3xhy7X8PCFAaZM +Y9fQWmMewXbJNdDydzHKR99l+Sbu17WRI+QegzDqbac43yL9KdaM1nca 4XCvv4J8S2+pUZwfnUrwuUkJXsmZYsRlyNcR0vK0MKYtIFlatUTdm17dA 7UmjjRxYqG99NXIXoYV25OFZslmANhf8KzGUCSPDUH4HVcvUZEvjcqtxi fhKiFhY8OJkIqW21P/M+Vj3ua4sdGxT4IIPduhgrx6unKT3o52AlgkS5A 1dxpxxuXStS7yo315mwf4lgB4cPd3813eysApsHQft7W7Zs+oH52yMpWV w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10286"; a="253726560" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,181,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="253726560" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2022 16:10:40 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,181,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="598096916" Received: from agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com ([172.25.222.60]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2022 16:10:40 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:10:39 -0700 From: "Luck, Tony" To: Greg KH Cc: Jithu Joseph , hdegoede@redhat.com, markgross@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, corbet@lwn.net, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, ashok.raj@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, Dan Williams Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Introduce In Field Scan driver Message-ID: References: <20220301195457.21152-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:10:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:54:47AM -0800, Jithu Joseph wrote: > > > Note to Maintainers: > > > Requesting x86 Maintainers to take a look at patch01 as it > > > touches arch/x86 portion of the kernel. Also would like to guide them > > > to patch07 which sets up hotplug notifiers and creates kthreads. > > > > > > Patch 2/10 - Adds Documentation. Requesting Documentation maintainer to review it. > > > > > > Requesting Greg KH to review the sysfs changes added by patch08. > > > > "RFC" means you are not comfortable submitting the changes yet, so you > > don't need my review at this point in time. Become confident in your > > changes before asking for others to review the code please. > > Hint, it needs work, sysfs_emit() for one thing, lack of reference > counting on your cpu objects is another... Greg, Thanks for the comments. They triggered a bunch of internal re-thinking of the interface. One idea that has some traction (Credit/Blame: Dan Williams) is to: 1) Don't put anything in /sys/devices/system/cpu/* 2) Driver creates some info/control files in its own corner of /sys/devices/.../ifs 3) No per-cpu files ... run a test with: # echo ${cpu} > /sys/devices/.../ifs/run_test 4) No test result files. When tests complete they report using uevents Using uevent to report means that we can easily have mutiple parts to the result (pass/fail/incomplete status, as well as diagnostic details about the reason for the failure, or why the test was not completed). This seems a novel use of uevent ... is it OK, or is is abuse? Thanks -Tony