Hi Peter, On 4/4/24 12:36, Peter Newman wrote: > 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. I am really no focusing much on portability in this series. I named it to match it with resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled. Yes. I got your concerns. I will plan check against James changes in next revision. > > 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. Agree. Please continue your feedback. -- Thanks Babu Moger
