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]

Date:	Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:15:24 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	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

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:00:25 +1000 Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton writes:
> 
> > If the drivers doesn't care and if it makes no difference to performance
> > then just delete the call to pci_set_mwi().
> > 
> > But if MWI _does_ make a difference to performance then we should tell
> > someone that it isn't working rather than silently misbehaving?
> 
> That sounds like we need a printk inside pci_set_mwi then, rather than
> adding a printk to every single caller.
> 

I think so, yes.  That's a good solution to a lot of these things.
-
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/