netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/9] cxgb4vf: Add code to provision T4 PCI-E SR-IOV Virtual Functions with hardware resources

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:	Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:51:29 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] cxgb4vf: Add code to provision T4 PCI-E SR-IOV
 Virtual Functions with hardware resources

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:55:07AM -0700, Casey Leedom wrote:
> | From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
> | Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010 06:37 am
> | 
> | I wonder if it would be cleaner to move the guts of the last hunk
> | into a function (e.g. adap_init_sriov()) and have that be a dummy
> | function in the case that CONFIG_PCI_IOV in the first hunk is not set.
> 
>   I have no objection to this.  I'd like to do minor tuning work like
> that as a follow on rather than respin the patch.  But, as I said in my
> submission, I'm not familiar with this process so if making changes like
> the above is required I'll definitely jump on it.  I don't know what
> issues are "critical show stoppers" and which ones are "nice to have"
> once things are in place.

I don't regard my suggestion as merge-critical.
--
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