Hi Ilpo,
On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT
> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported.
> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported.
>
> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val().
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
This does not look like stable material to me.
Reinette
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT
> > feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported.
> > Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported.
> >
> > Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J?rvinen <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
>
> This does not look like stable material to me.
I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options:
Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request()
or remove this call entirely.
Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it
(which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires
this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too.
--
i.
Hi Ilpo,
On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT
>>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported.
>>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported.
>>>
>>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>
>> This does not look like stable material to me.
>
> I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options:
>
> Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request()
> or remove this call entirely.
>
> Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it
> (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires
> this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too.
>
Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed
in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me
that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a
fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable
I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the
actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise
this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like:
Cc: <[email protected]> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks"
I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden
the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd
defer to your experience.
Reinette
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT
> >>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported.
> >>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported.
> >>>
> >>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
> >>> Cc: <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> This does not look like stable material to me.
> >
> > I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options:
> >
> > Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request()
> > or remove this call entirely.
> >
> > Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it
> > (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires
> > this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too.
> >
>
> Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed
> in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me
> that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a
> fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable
> I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the
> actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise
> this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like:
>
> Cc: <[email protected]> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks"
>
> I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden
> the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd
> defer to your experience.
I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how
to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id
(the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago
so I cannot easily find the link.
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't state that the
stable address should be only used for the patches with Fixes. In general,
I believe this doesn't matter much because whether something is Cc'ed or
not to [email protected] doesn't seems to impact the decision if a
patch goes into stable or not (even if even some maintainers seem to
pretend leaving it out makes a difference so I tend to play along and
smile myself how incorrect that assumption is :-)).
--
i.
Hi Ilpo,
On 9/14/2023 2:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 9/13/2023 4:11 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2023 4:19 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>>> The test runner run_cmt_test() in resctrl_tests.c checks for CMT
>>>>> feature and does not run cmt_resctrl_val() if CMT is not supported.
>>>>> Then cmt_resctrl_val() also check is CMT is supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove the duplicated feature check for CMT from cmt_resctrl_val().
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> This does not look like stable material to me.
>>>
>>> I know but when constructing this series I had 2 options:
>>>
>>> Either convert also this when changing validate_resctrl_feature_request()
>>> or remove this call entirely.
>>>
>>> Given it's duplicate of the other CMT check, I chose to just remove it
>>> (which I'd do anyway). As patch 4/5 requires 3/5 which in turn requires
>>> this, this has to go stable if 4/5 goes too.
>>>
>>
>> Understood. This makes it a dependency of an actual fix, which is addressed
>> in 4/5's sign-off area. This notation is new to me but it is not clear to me
>> that the dependency should also be tagged as stable material (without a
>> fixes tag). Since it is not an actual fix by itself yet is sent to @stable
>> I think it may cause confusion. Is just listing it as a dependency of the
>> actual fix not sufficient (as you already do in 4/5)? Perhaps as compromise
>> this patch can also get a note to the stable team. Something like:
>>
>> Cc: <[email protected]> # dependency of "selftests/resctrl: Fix feature checks"
>>
>> I am not sure though - I would like to avoid confusion and not burden
>> the stable team. If this is a flow you have used before successfully I'd
>> defer to your experience.
>
> I came across that dependency format when Greg KH replied to somebody how
> to deal with the cases where there isn't yet a commit id
> (the cases mentioned in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> assumes there is already a commit id). Unfortunately it's long time ago
> so I cannot easily find the link.
I see, thank you. I was not aware of this custom.
Reinette