linux-kernel - Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:39:26 -0400
From:	Dan Noe <dpn@...merica.net>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	e1000-list <e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-pci maillist <linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:12:29PM -0400, Dan Noe wrote:
>> It would be nice if lspci could display what driver had claimed a 
>> particular device
> 
> You need to upgrade to a more recent version of lspci -- it already does
> this ;-)

Hah, thanks.  That is useful and very new :)  I built a newer lspci and 
I see it is now displayed with the -k option.

> Maybe 'status' would be a better name than 'broken'.  We could even
> default it to 'unclaimed' then.  Or 'driver_status' to avoid conflicting
> with some bus that might have a 'status' bit we try to report through
> sysfs.

I agree however that the opportunity for more status would be good.  And 
status is a better name than "broken".  This way it is easy to scan all 
devices on the system via sysfs and easily visualize via lspci or some 
other tool:

1) Unclaimed devices

2) Devices that aren't working properly - and why (please something more 
than "This device is not working properly" :)

3) Devices that are claimed and working properly

Cheers,
Dan

-- 
                     /--------------- - -  -  -   -   -
                     |  Daniel Noe
                     |  http://isomerica.net/~dpn/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/