linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get 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]

Message-Id: <1160956960.5732.99.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:02:40 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, matthew@....cx,
	val_henson@...ux.intel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set

Ar Sul, 2006-10-15 am 16:18 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton:
> No.  If pci_set_mwi() detects an unexpected error then the driver should
> take some action: report it, recover from it, fail to load, etc.  If the
> driver fails to do any of this then it's a buggy driver.

Wrong and there are several drivers in the kernel that are proof of
this.

> You, the driver author _do not know_ what pci_set_mwi() does at present, on
> all platforms, nor do you know what it does in the future.  For you the

You don't care. It isn't an error for set_mwi to fail. In fact the only
reason set_mwi even needs to bother with a return code is that some
chips want you to set other config private to the device if it is
available and active.

Alan

-
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/