On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 10:49:34AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 06:17:41PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > Patch 1 of the series proposes the generic interface, with hooks > > that architectures can override to suit their needs. The three patches > > patches implement such interface for x86 (as per request from Boris, > > I pulled patch 2 from a separate submission [1]). > > So I ask you to show me the whole thing, how this is supposed to be used > in a *real* use case and you're sending me a couple of patches which > report these heterogeneous or whatever they're gonna be called CPUs. > > Are you telling me that all this development effort was done so that > you can report heterogeneity in sysfs? Or you just had to come up with > *something*? > > Let me try again: please show me the *big* *picture* with all the code > how this is supposed to be used. In the patches I read a bunch of "may" > formulations of what is possible and what userspace could do and so on. > > Not that - show me the *full* and *real* use cases which you are > enabling and which justify all that churn. Instead of leaving it all to > userspace CPUID and the kernel not caring one bit. > > Does that make more sense?
Yes Boris, thanks for the clarification. The proposed sysfs interface is one instance in which we use cpuinfo_x86.x86_cpu_type. I have other changes that use this new member. I will post them. > > > [1]. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/10/2/1013 > > For supplying links, we use lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id> solely. > Please use that from now on. Sure Boris, I will use lore.kernel.org in the future. Thanks and BR, Ricardo