From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:57690 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726134AbeLKUnU (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:43:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:43:10 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Reinette Chatre Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, gavin.hindman@intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/intel_rdt: Ensure usage of CPUs are locked while needed Message-ID: <20181211204310.GQ27375@zn.tnic> References: <20181211123404.GC27375@zn.tnic> <20181211185059.GP27375@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02:08AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote: > I just wanted to emphasize that it is not the schemata writing that > needs to be protected, but instead the pseudo-locking code that runs > after schemata programming that needs to run on a particular CPU. The > new patch subject could be interpreted to mean the former ... but that > is starting to sound like nitpicking by me. Nah, that's not nitpicking - it is important that we sort out stuff fully before committing. Now, I'm trying to understand what you're telling me and I believe you mean what update_domains() does, yes? And I guess a more fitting subject in that case could be: x86/intel_rdt: Ensure a CPU remains online for the region's pseudo-locking sequence or so, and then the commit message explains in more detail what that title actually means. :) Hmmm. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.