Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:18:57 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Kohei Tarumizu <tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        fenghua.yu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] drivers: base: Add hardware prefetch control core
 driver
Message-ID: <YmD3UX6aTvUXlYF5@kroah.com>
References: <20220420030223.689259-1-tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
 <20220420030223.689259-2-tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220420030223.689259-2-tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 12:02:15PM +0900, Kohei Tarumizu wrote:
> This driver adds the register/unregister function to create the
> "prefetch_control" directory and some attribute files. Attributes are
> only present if the particular cache implements the relevant
> prefetcher controls
> 
> If the architecture has control of the CPU's hardware prefetcher
> behavior, use this function to create sysfs. When registering, it is
> necessary to provide what type of hardware prefetcher is supported
> and how to read/write to the register.
> 
> Following patches add support for A64FX and x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kohei Tarumizu <tarumizu.kohei@fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/pfctl.c  | 458 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/pfctl.h |  49 +++++
>  2 files changed, 507 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/base/pfctl.c
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/pfctl.h

Thanks to Thomas for pointing this change out to me.

Why did you not use get_maintainer.pl on your patch?  You are adding
files here that you want _me_ to maintain for the next 25+ years, yet
not asking for my review?  That's not nice, and for that reason alone I
would not accept this change.

Also, this is very hardware-specific, which is not a good thing for code
in drivers/base/  See the mess we have in the topology driver core code
for examples of that mess :(

greg k-h