Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131894-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1711674410.git.babu.moger@amd.com> <0db75c94886da62b8da498ef159d8fe27b0b3811.1711674410.git.babu.moger@amd.com>
 <CALPaoCgRtYLnzpkL6uVjb+LvBbxD8ANRuzACP1UQ=rkzk8TCqg@mail.gmail.com> <a7e7f220-99f2-465f-bc36-aadccb891190@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7e7f220-99f2-465f-bc36-aadccb891190@amd.com>
From: Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:36:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALPaoChsU-C6fhjfLFEmxCXCdY-0PL-Hk4pHYs=TZ9PN6UFexw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/17] x86/resctrl: Add support to enable/disable
 ABMC feature
To: babu.moger@amd.com
Cc: corbet@lwn.net, fenghua.yu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com, 
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, 
	paulmck@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, tj@kernel.org, 
	peterz@infradead.org, yanjiewtw@gmail.com, kim.phillips@amd.com, 
	lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, seanjc@google.com, jmattson@google.com, 
	leitao@debian.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, 
	kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com, kai.huang@intel.com, 
	kan.liang@linux.intel.com, daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com, 
	pbonzini@redhat.com, sandipan.das@amd.com, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, 
	maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eranian@google.com, james.morse@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Babu,

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:16=E2=80=AFAM Moger, Babu <babu.moger@amd.com> wro=
te:

> On 4/3/24 19:30, Peter Newman wrote:
> > This looks like it would move to fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c where it's not
> > possible to dereference an rdt_hw_resource struct.
> >
> > It might be helpful to try building your changes on top of James's
> > change[1] to get an idea of how this would fit in post-refactoring.
> > I'll stop pointing out inconsistencies with his portability scheme
> > now.
>
> Considering the complexity of James changes, I was hoping my series will
> go first. It would be difficult for me to make changes based on transient
> patch series. I would think it would be best to base the patches based on
> tip/master.

I don't need you to push the patches to the mailing list based on
James's series. I was just asking you to try building locally on top
of the refactoring changes. You are putting in the effort trying to
make this code portable (i.e., inventing new
resctrl_arch_-interfaces), so it would be sensible to check your work
locally.

However, I am the main stakeholder who cares about MPAM and ABMC
working in the same kernel, so I can continue to give feedback on
portability as I compose the series' together.

-Peter