Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-468-gdb53729b73-fm-20210517.001-gdb53729b
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9a83ea72-7651-477e-b553-43ae12926ef6@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJvTdK=Z5LMU9ehFH2NVFCP7LLEvaTtywfuZHdwRb9-7hvE8KA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210523193259.26200-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
 <20210523193259.26200-16-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
 <CAJvTdKnrFSS0fvhNz5mb9v8epEVtphUesEUV0hhNErMBK5HNHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvTdKmzN0VMyH8VU_fdzn2UZqmR=_aNrJW01a65BhyLm6YRPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YK9/Gu2Bse0Mc0F3@zn.tnic>
 <CAJvTdK=Z5LMU9ehFH2NVFCP7LLEvaTtywfuZHdwRb9-7hvE8KA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 12:35:58 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>
To:     "Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: second, sync-alloc syscall
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, May 27, 2021, at 6:59 AM, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:14 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>=20
> > So if this second syscall doesn't sound really great, I'd say we sti=
ck
> > to the #NM-based allocation and keep this one in the bag for now and=

> > take it out only if it turns out that it makes sense as a use case.
>=20
> I agree.  Simple to add if later, if something requires it --
> though given it's modest incremental value, currently hard to justify.=

>=20
> > As tglx said: it is easy to add stuff later. It is a lot harder - ev=
en
> > impossible - to remove already present machinery.

Also, in case you haven=E2=80=99t been watching the other thread, this w=
hole thing needs to wait until the existing code gets cleaned up.   The =
current signal code is a disaster.

>=20
> Indeed.
>=20
> thanks!
> Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>=20