Re: [RFC 0/5] x86/intel_rdt: Better diagnostics

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Mon Sep 18 2017 - 21:10:34 EST

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:18:38 -0700
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> Chatting online with Boris to diagnose why his test cases for RDT
> weren't working, we came up with either a good idea (in which case
> I credit Boris) or a dumb one (in which case this is all my fault).
> The basic problem is that there aren't many good error codes for
> a file system interface to pass back to the user. I'd resisted
> adding printk() calls because it is a pain to parse the console
> log, doubly so if you want to do it from a shell script that is
> actually issuing the commands to RDT.
> The answer is to add new file in the "info" directory that gives
> the status of the last "command" to RDT (either a mkdir, or a
> write to one of the control files).
> I used the seq_buf* framework because I initially thought a single
> command might result in multiple messages. But currently that isn't
> true and we could potentially just use "strcpy()/sprintf()" to a
> fixed buffer. I didn't switch to that because the seq_buf* seems
> very lightweight and allows for future extra messages while including
> checking for exceeding the length of the buffer.
> Tony Luck (5):
> x86/intel_rdt: Add framework for better RDT UI diagnostics
> x86/intel_rdt: Add diagnostics when writing the schemata file
> x86/intel_rdt: Add diagnostics when writing the tasks file
> x86/intel_rdt: Add diagnostics when writing the cpus file
> x86/intel_rdt: Add diagnostics when making directories
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h | 6 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_ctrlmondata.c | 61 +++++++++++++++----
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 3 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

They all look fine to me.

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-- Steve