From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/18] ACPI / APEI: Make estatus queue a Kconfig symbol Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:34:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20181004173416.GC5149@zn.tnic> References: <20180921221705.6478-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20180921221705.6478-6-james.morse@arm.com> <20181001175956.GF7269@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: James Morse Cc: jonathan.zhang@cavium.com, Rafael Wysocki , Tony Luck , linux-mm@kvack.org, Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Tyler Baicar , Will Deacon , Dongjiu Geng , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Punit Agrawal , Naoya Horiguchi , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 06:50:36PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > I'm all in favour of letting the compiler work it out, but the existing ghes > code has #ifdef/#else all over the place. This is 'keeping the style'. Yeah, but this "style" is not the optimal one and we should simplify/clean up and fix this thing. Swapping the order of your statements here: > The ACPI spec has four ~NMI notifications, so far the support for > these in Linux has been selectable separately. Yes, but: distro kernels end up enabling all those options anyway and distro kernels are 90-ish% of the setups. Which means, this will get enabled anyway and this additional Kconfig symbol is simply going to be one automatic reply "Yes". So let's build it in by default and if someone complains about it, we can always carve it out. But right now I don't see the need for the unnecessary separation... Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1706B000A for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id f13-v6so9128006wrr.4 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de. [2a01:4f8:190:11c2::b:1457]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z14-v6si4099095wrl.151.2018.10.04.10.34.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:34:16 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/18] ACPI / APEI: Make estatus queue a Kconfig symbol Message-ID: <20181004173416.GC5149@zn.tnic> References: <20180921221705.6478-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20180921221705.6478-6-james.morse@arm.com> <20181001175956.GF7269@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: James Morse Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Naoya Horiguchi , Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Tyler Baicar , Dongjiu Geng , Xie XiuQi , Punit Agrawal , jonathan.zhang@cavium.com On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 06:50:36PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > I'm all in favour of letting the compiler work it out, but the existing ghes > code has #ifdef/#else all over the place. This is 'keeping the style'. Yeah, but this "style" is not the optimal one and we should simplify/clean up and fix this thing. Swapping the order of your statements here: > The ACPI spec has four ~NMI notifications, so far the support for > these in Linux has been selectable separately. Yes, but: distro kernels end up enabling all those options anyway and distro kernels are 90-ish% of the setups. Which means, this will get enabled anyway and this additional Kconfig symbol is simply going to be one automatic reply "Yes". So let's build it in by default and if someone complains about it, we can always carve it out. But right now I don't see the need for the unnecessary separation... Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bp@alien8.de (Borislav Petkov) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:34:16 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 05/18] ACPI / APEI: Make estatus queue a Kconfig symbol In-Reply-To: References: <20180921221705.6478-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20180921221705.6478-6-james.morse@arm.com> <20181001175956.GF7269@zn.tnic> Message-ID: <20181004173416.GC5149@zn.tnic> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 06:50:36PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > I'm all in favour of letting the compiler work it out, but the existing ghes > code has #ifdef/#else all over the place. This is 'keeping the style'. Yeah, but this "style" is not the optimal one and we should simplify/clean up and fix this thing. Swapping the order of your statements here: > The ACPI spec has four ~NMI notifications, so far the support for > these in Linux has been selectable separately. Yes, but: distro kernels end up enabling all those options anyway and distro kernels are 90-ish% of the setups. Which means, this will get enabled anyway and this additional Kconfig symbol is simply going to be one automatic reply "Yes". So let's build it in by default and if someone complains about it, we can always carve it out. But right now I don't see the need for the unnecessary separation... Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.