linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set

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:	Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:28:42 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Val Henson <val_henson@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [TULIP] Check the return value from pci_set_mwi()

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >Also, pci_set_mwi() will fail if the cache line
> >size is 0, so we don't need to check that ourselves any more.
> 
> NAK, not true on all arches.  sparc64 at least presumes that the 
> firmware DTRT with cacheline size, which hurts us now given this tulip patch

How does it hurt us?

int pcibios_prep_mwi(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
        /* We set correct PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE register values for every
         * device probed on this platform.  So there is nothing to check
         * and this always succeeds.
         */
        return 0;
}

If Dave's wrong about that, it hurts him, not us ;-)

It's still not necessary for the Tulip driver to check.
-
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/