Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:45:15 -0500
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel
Message-ID: <20200123044514.GA2453000@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20191212085948.GS2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200110192409.GA23315@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20200114055521.GI14928@linux.intel.com>
 <20200115222754.GA13804@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20200115225724.GA18268@linux.intel.com>
 <20200122185514.GA16010@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20200122224245.GA2331824@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F54887A@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20200123004507.GA2403906@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20200123035359.GA23659@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200123035359.GA23659@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 07:53:59PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
>  
> +	split_lock_ac=
> +			[X86] Enable split lock detection

More bike-shedding: I actually don't get Sean's suggestion to rename
this to split_lock_ac [1]. If split lock detection is able to trigger
some other form of fault/trap we just change the implementation to cope,
we would not want to change the command line argument that enables it,
so split_lock_detect is more informative?

And if the concern is the earlier one [2], then surely everything should
be renamed sld -> slac?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200114055521.GI14928@linux.intel.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191122184457.GA31235@linux.intel.com/