netdev - Re: [rfc 0/4] igb: bandwidth allocation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:31:09 +1100
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc:	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc 0/4] igb: bandwidth allocation

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:01:32AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 18:21, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:46:50PM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 16:58, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > this series of patches exposes the bandwidth allocation
> >> > hardware support of the Intel 82576. It does so through
> >> > a rather hackish sysfs entry. That interface is just intended
> >> > for testing so that the exposed hardware feature can
> >> > be exercised. I would like to find a generic way to expose
> >> > this feature to user-space.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks Simon.  I have add the 4 patch series to my tree for testing.
> >
> > Thanks. I wanted to get the code out rather than sitting on it
> > for lack of a better user-space interface. Although there
> > is a lot of fluff the actual register twiddling for
> > bandwidth allocation turned out to be quite simple.
> >
> 
> Simon -
> After doing some testing on the series of patches, we are getting a
> panic with these patches applied to net-next.  I have provided below
> the panic we saw, right now we have a large patch load so a bisect
> will have to wait.  Hopefully with time permitting, we will be able to
> revisit these patches soon.

Hi Jeff,

sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I've been caught up with
family matters for the past few weeks (my wife had a baby!).

It seems that the problem was caused by the second patch in the series
moving the initialisation of adapter->vfs_allocated_count.
I will submit a fresh patch series to resolve this and some
other minor problems.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html