Hi Reinette,
On 12/12/2025 1:22 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I tried this series against latest upstream kernel and found a conflict with
> some recent kselftest
> refactoring via commit e6fbd1759c9e ("selftests: complete kselftest include
> centralization").
Thank you for pointing out this issue.
I will rebase on top of the latest upstream kernel.
>
> Usually the strategy for resctrl tests is to base them on "next" branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shuah/linux-kselftest.git ...
> but I notice that the
> conflicting change was routed differently and thus difficult to have
> anticipated.
Thank you for the information.
>
> Since we are in merge window the maintainer repos are not ready for new
> features yet.
> Until the repo is ready, could you please base on latest upstream?
No problem. Thank you.
I will rebase on top of the latest upstream kernel, and then send out v4 patch
series.
>
> Looking at the series it is not obvious how you want these patches handled
> though. Patch #3
> is the only one with a "Fixes:" tag (and thus candidate for automatic
> backport) but it is in
> the middle of the series. It is usually best to have fixes at beginning of
> series to
> simplify their handling. Even so, all patches are fixes but only patch #4 has
> a note
Thank you. I will re-organize the patch series to move patch #3 to the
beginning of series.
> not to consider for backport. Could you please consider how you want these
> patches handled,
> communicate that clearly in cover letter, and re-organize the series to have
> the ones needing
> backport to be at beginning of series?
Thank you for your great suggestions.
I plan to add the maintainer notes in patch #1, patch #2, patch #4 (in original
patch ordering in v3) and cover letter:
Patch #1 (this patch):
In my opinion, it is an improvement (to these two commits) rather than a real
fix:
commit 6220f69e72a5 ("selftests/resctrl: Extend CPU vendor detection")
commit c603ff5bb830 ("selftests/resctrl: Introduce generalized test
framework")
What do you think?
If you agree with me, I plan to add a maintainer note that it is not a
candidate for backport in v4 patch series.
Patch #2:
This patch is not a candidate for backport. I will add a maintainer note in v4
patch series:
---------------------------
Maintainer note:
Even though this is a fix it is not a candidate for backport since it is
based on another patch series (x86/resctrl: Fix Platform QoS issues for
Hygon) which is in process of being added to resctrl.
---------------------------
Patch #3:
A candidate for backport with "Fixes:" tag. I will move this patch to the
beginning of series.
Patch #4:
Already has a maintainer note. Keep no change.
Cover letter:
I plan to add a maintainer note outlining how I'd like these patches to be
handled.
>> -static int detect_vendor(void)
>> +static unsigned int detect_vendor(void)
>> {
>> - FILE *inf = fopen("/proc/cpuinfo", "r");
>> - int vendor_id = 0;
>> + static bool initialized;
>> + static unsigned int vendor_id;
>> + FILE *inf;
> Please maintain the reverse fir ordering.
Thank you. I will fix this issue.
Best regards,
Xiaochen Shen
