Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/29] mm: asi: Make some utility functions noinstr compatible

Borislav Petkov
2025-01-16T14:04:55Z

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Sure. I'm actually not even sure that for a [PATCH]-quality thing this
> cross-cutting commit even makes sense - once we've decided on the
> general way to solve this problem, perhaps the changes should just be
> part of the commit that needs them?

Right, that sounds better.

> It feels messy to have a patch that "does multiple things", but on the
> other hand it might be annoying to review a patch that says "make a
> load of random changes across the kernel, which are needed at various
> points in various upcoming patches, trust me".
>
> Do you have any opinion on that?

You're absolutely right - we do things when we need them and not before.
Otherwise, often times things get done preemptively and then forgotten only
for someone to notice way later and undo them again.

> (BTW, since a comment you made on another series (can't find it on
> Lore...), I've changed my writing style to avoid stuff like this in
> comments & commit messages in general, but this text all predates
> that. I'll do my best to sort all that stuff out before I send
> anything as a [PATCH].)

Thanks!

Btw, good and funny way to use "[PATCH]-quality" to mean non-RFC. :-P

> Oh, I didn't notice your update until now. But yeah I also couldn't
> reproduce it on a Sapphire Rapids machine and on QEMU with this patch
> applied on top of tip/master (37bc915c6ad0f).

Yeah, it feels like toolchain-related but I can't put my finger on it yet.
We'll see if and when this thing will re-surface its ugly head...

:-)

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.