When a function is called via IPI, it isn't possible for assertions
in source code to check that the right locks are held when those
locks were obtained by the sender of the IPI.

Restructure some code to avoid the need for the check.

Patch 1 has the actual fix

Patch 2 is just some code cleanups

Changes since V2:

1) Rebased on TIP x86/cache

2) Added a missed setting of msr_param.dom in resctrl_arch_update_one()

3) Dropped the code that used separate msr_param structures for CDP

4) Added lockdep_assert_cpus_held() to get_domain_from_cpu()

5) Split into two patches

Tony Luck (2):
  x86/resctrl: Pass domain to target CPU
  x86/resctrl: Simply call convention for MSR update functions

 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h    |  4 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c        | 55 +++++++++--------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c | 42 +++++------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c    | 14 ++----
 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)


base-commit: c0d848fcb09d80a5f48b99f85e448185125ef59f
-- 
2.43.0

Hi Tony,

Is sending new versions of patch series in response to the previous
versions a new custom? I am finding the SNC thread [1] to have become
a maze and now this thread is headed in the same direction. My understanding
of custom (supported by [2]) is to send new versions as a new thread. 
This thread even complicates it more by mixing versions of different
features in the same email thread.

Reinette

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230713163207.219710-1-tony.luck@intel.com/
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#explicit-in-reply-to-headers

> Is sending new versions of patch series in response to the previous
> versions a new custom? I am finding the SNC thread [1] to have become
> a maze and now this thread is headed in the same direction. My understanding
> of custom (supported by [2]) is to send new versions as a new thread. 
> This thread even complicates it more by mixing versions of different
> features in the same email thread.

Reinette,

Not new for me. I've always (tried) to link everything together.

But thanks for this link:

[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#explicit-in-reply-to-headers

I see that this isn't desired. I'll switch over to adding a Link: URL in the cover
letter going forward.[1]

-Tony

[1] I'm going to need a v4 if only to s/Simply/Simplify/ in the subject of part 2 :-(