linux-kernel - Re: [Bulk] 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: <20061015070809.978C714552@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date:	Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:08:09 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	matthew@....cx, akpm@...l.org
Cc:	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: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get 
 set

> But the only effect of returning EINVAL is a printk (for this particular
> driver):
>
>         /* PCI Memory-Write-Invalidate cycle support is optional (uncommon) */
>         retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
>         if (!retval)
>                 ehci_dbg(ehci, "MWI active\n");

Erm, I've lost context here but it's completely legit for hardware
to NOT support MWI, so it is in no way an error if it's not set.
(Memory-Write-Invalidate is just a more efficient way to write data
that may be cached; if the device can't issue those cycles, there's
no loss of correctness.)

Since it's not an error, there should be no such printk ... which
is exactly how it's coded above.

Who is issuing the printk on a non-error code path??

- Dave

-
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/