Messages in this thread | | | From | "Zengtao (B)" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption | Date | Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:58:41 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.holla@arm.com] > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 7:11 PM > To: Zengtao (B) > Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Sudeep Holla > Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 01:41:47AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.holla@arm.com] > > > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 6:41 PM > > > To: Zengtao (B) > > > Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Sudeep Holla > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Fix the potential data corruption > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:35:45PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote: > > > > Currently there are only 10 bytes to store the cpu-topology info. > > > > That is: > > > > snprintf(buffer, 10, "cluster%d",i); > > > > snprintf(buffer, 10, "thread%d",i); > > > > snprintf(buffer, 10, "core%d",i); > > > > > > > > In the boundary test, if the cluster number exceeds 100, there will > be a > > > > > > I don't understand you mention of 100 in particular above. I can see > > > issue > > > if there are cluster with more than 2-digit id. Though highly unlikely > for > > > now, but I don't have objection to the patch. > > > > > > > The same meaning, more than 2-digit id equals to more than 100, > right? > > Yes. May be it is obvious but I prefer to word the commit message > accordingly. > Mention of 100 specifically makes at-least me think something very > specific > to 100 and not applicable for any more than 2-digit number. >
Do you think I need to update the commit message and resend the patch? And I don't mind if you can help modify the commit message since both are fine for me, and it's a very trivial change.
> > Here 100 is for from tester/user perspective. > > And we found this issue when test with QEMU. > > OK. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
| |