Hi Babu, On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:16 AM Moger, Babu <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
