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:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:03:55 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@intel.com>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.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>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current_batch sysfs
 entry
Message-ID: <Y3KRGx/yNfS78zQ2@zn.tnic>
References: <20221021203413.1220137-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <20221107225323.2733518-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <20221107225323.2733518-13-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <Y2/JNAmSoYlLKq3A@zn.tnic>
 <CC3629D6-B205-4150-80E5-FC7A7A76DD25@intel.com>
 <Y3CevK2zhAmiUyG9@kroah.com>
 <Y3DZmKYV+8HBtZ+Q@zn.tnic>
 <Y3EJ93xzgC/1v0WV@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
 <Y3EUPKWDefnkeObR@zn.tnic>
 <45aa0f69-2523-3cba-8f41-b1351f16b78f@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45aa0f69-2523-3cba-8f41-b1351f16b78f@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> So, what's the point of the sscanf() to check the *filename* other than
> saving some potentially expensive request_firmware() calls?

The point is to do a first sanity check. The other tests are of course
mandatory.

Which brings me to another bastardly idea:

Let's say you have sequence numbers 0-6.

Now someone comes along and changes them all to x-y, where both x and y
are > 6. Or removes the sequence numbers completely.

Now you go and echo your sequence number into current_batch and nothing
happens. But the sequences *are* there - just not named in a magic way.

Now *my* idea would work because you don't care what the filenames are.
But you don't want that and you want do some silly sequence numbers
which the user has to go and connect with what's in the directory.

If this were microcode and arch/x86/, I would've never accepted it.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette