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;
Message-ID: <ab0db3fa-4106-da16-7771-8ab50aa0f3b5@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:28:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current_batch sysfs
 entry
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
Cc:     "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@intel.com>,
        "markgross@kernel.org" <markgross@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        "Jimenez Gonzalez, Athenas" <athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@intel.com>,
        "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
References: <20221021203413.1220137-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <Y3CevK2zhAmiUyG9@kroah.com> <Y3DZmKYV+8HBtZ+Q@zn.tnic>
 <2537334.Lt9SDvczpP@tjmaciei-mobl5> <Y3F4Uq+1qi5tnmeG@zn.tnic>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y3F4Uq+1qi5tnmeG@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 11/14/22 00:05, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 01:51:56PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Anyway, we can update the tool to print "%02x-%02x-%02x-%02x.%s" instead of 
>> "%d". That's trivial to us. I just don't think it's a worthwhile change, 
> 
> As I wrote to Tony, "I guess time will show whether the sequence number
> thing was a good idea."

Just for the record: I've read the entire thread and I'm fine with doing
things either way.

If I understand this last email correctly then the plan is to move
ahead with the patches as-is, with writing only the batch-number and
have the kernel create the filename. This was and still is fine with me.

Regards,

Hans