linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add no-D3 quirk for Mellanox ConnectX-[45]

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, 11 Dec 2018 21:04:41 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, tariqt@...lanox.com,
        leon@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        sbest@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add no-D3 quirk for Mellanox ConnectX-[45]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:38 PM David Gibson
<david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:01:43AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I see you're still working on this, but if you do end up going this
> > direction eventually, would you mind splitting this into two patches:
> > 1) rename the quirk to make it more generic (but not changing any
> > behavior), and 2) add the ConnectX devices to the quirk.  That way
> > the ConnectX change is smaller and more easily
> > understood/reverted/etc.
>
> Sure.  Would it make sense to send (1) as an independent cleanup,
> while I'm still working out exactly what (if anything) we need for
> (2)?

You could, but I don't think there's really much benefit in doing the
first without the second, and I think there is some value in handling
both patches at the same time.