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