linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h

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:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:09:41 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, galak@...nel.crashing.orga,
	beckyb@...nel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h


> Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these 
> bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.

Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about
missing Ack's then :-)

I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good.

> One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull 
> core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the 
> moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc 
> specific bits from Fujita.

Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing
in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but
that they are in powerpc-next for better testing.

Cheers,
Ben.

> A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into 
> core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much 
> better at testing PowerPC patches.
> 
> A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb 
> bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.
> 
> Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to 
> be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest 
> latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.
> 
> [ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence",
>   "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all
>   three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]
> 
> 	Ingo

--
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/