linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 01/15] ACPI: MCFG: Move mmcfg

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, 5 Apr 2016 20:07:59 +0200
From:	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair 
	<jayachandran.chandrashekaran@...adcom.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, rafael@...nel.org,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	okaya@...eaurora.org, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com,
	Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	wangyijing@...wei.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
	msalter@...hat.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 01/15] ACPI: MCFG: Move mmcfg_list management to
 drivers/acpi

Hi Bjorn,

On 05.04.2016 18:41, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Tomasz,
>

[...]

>>>>
>>>
>>> As you pointed out raw_pci_{read|write} make things complicated, so IMO
>>> we should either say they are absolutely necessary (and then think how
>>> to simplify it) or just use simple bus-specific accessor (patch 02/15)
>>> e.g. for ARM64.
>>>
>>> Any comments appreciated.
>>
>> Kindly reminder. I would like to move on with this patch set. Can
>> you please comments on it so that we could decide which way to go.
>
> Can you repost your current proposal with a version number higher than
> any previous ones?  It's OK if the content is the same as v4; I just
> think it's confusing if we resurrect v4 and have to follow discussion
> from v3 to v4 to v5 and back to v4.  The archives would be a bit of a
> muddle.
>

Sure I will repost ASAP.

Thanks!
Tomasz