From: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@cavium.com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, Linu Cherian <Linu.Cherian@cavium.com>, Shih-Wei Li <shihwei@cs.columbia.edu>, Sunil Goutham <Sunil.Goutham@cavium.com>, Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@cavium.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:26:02 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAOFm3uGjeT3waQaC+Ak=gmNkLFsFO6HshyEwsYA5QX2RjK0XNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20171219085010.4081-1-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> Dear Yury, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > This benchmark sends many IPIs in different modes and measures > time for IPI delivery (first column), and total time, ie including > time to acknowledge the receive by sender (second column). <snip> > --- /dev/null > +++ b/kernel/ipi_benchmark.c > @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ > +/* > + * Performance test for IPI on SMP machines. > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2017 Cavium Networks. > + * > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > + * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public > + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > + * General Public License for more details. > + */ Would you mind using the new SPDX tags documented in Thomas patch set [1] rather than this fine but longer legalese? Each time long legalese is added as a comment to a kernel file, there is a whole star system that dies somewhere in the universe, which is not a good thing. SPDX tags eschew this problem by using a simple one line comment and this has been proven to be mostly harmless. And if you could spread the word to others in your team this would be very nice. I recently nudged Aleksey who nicely updated his patches a short while ago. > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); There is a problem here: your MODULE_LICENSE tag means GPL-2.0 or later versions as documented in module.h. This is not consistent with your top level license notice. You should make this consistent IMHO .... and use SPDX tags for the top level notice of course! Thank you! [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934 CC: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@cavium.com> -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: pombredanne@nexb.com (Philippe Ombredanne) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:26:02 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAOFm3uGjeT3waQaC+Ak=gmNkLFsFO6HshyEwsYA5QX2RjK0XNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20171219085010.4081-1-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> Dear Yury, On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > This benchmark sends many IPIs in different modes and measures > time for IPI delivery (first column), and total time, ie including > time to acknowledge the receive by sender (second column). <snip> > --- /dev/null > +++ b/kernel/ipi_benchmark.c > @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ > +/* > + * Performance test for IPI on SMP machines. > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2017 Cavium Networks. > + * > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > + * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public > + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > + * General Public License for more details. > + */ Would you mind using the new SPDX tags documented in Thomas patch set [1] rather than this fine but longer legalese? Each time long legalese is added as a comment to a kernel file, there is a whole star system that dies somewhere in the universe, which is not a good thing. SPDX tags eschew this problem by using a simple one line comment and this has been proven to be mostly harmless. And if you could spread the word to others in your team this would be very nice. I recently nudged Aleksey who nicely updated his patches a short while ago. > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); There is a problem here: your MODULE_LICENSE tag means GPL-2.0 or later versions as documented in module.h. This is not consistent with your top level license notice. You should make this consistent IMHO .... and use SPDX tags for the top level notice of course! Thank you! [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934 CC: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@cavium.com> -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-19 9:26 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-12-19 8:50 [PATCH v2] IPI performance benchmark Yury Norov 2017-12-19 8:50 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-19 9:26 ` Philippe Ombredanne [this message] 2017-12-19 9:26 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2017-12-19 9:26 ` Philippe Ombredanne 2017-12-19 10:28 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-19 10:28 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-19 10:28 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-19 23:51 ` Andrew Morton 2017-12-19 23:51 ` Andrew Morton 2017-12-20 6:44 ` Wanpeng Li 2017-12-20 6:44 ` Wanpeng Li 2017-12-21 19:02 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-21 19:02 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-22 6:17 ` Wanpeng Li 2017-12-22 6:09 ` Yury Norov 2017-12-22 6:09 ` Yury Norov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAOFm3uGjeT3waQaC+Ak=gmNkLFsFO6HshyEwsYA5QX2RjK0XNw@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=pombredanne@nexb.com \ --cc=Ashish.Kalra@cavium.com \ --cc=Linu.Cherian@cavium.com \ --cc=Sunil.Goutham@cavium.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=aleksey.makarov@cavium.com \ --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \ --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \ --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=shihwei@cs.columbia.edu \ --cc=ynorov@caviumnetworks.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.