linux-kernel - Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 26/34] PCI: add pci_try_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4696107C.60104@emulex.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:29:00 -0400
From:	James Smart <James.Smart@...lex.Com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
CC:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	pcihpd-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 26/34] PCI: add pci_try_set_mwi

I'm agnostic on the change... As long as we get a message somewhere
when the failure is meaningful, I'm fine with this change. I didn't
like setting mwi by the driver anyway - it should have already been
done by the platform.

-- james s


Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>>>> @@ -1578,10 +1578,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *pid)
>>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&phba->fc_nodes);
>>>>  
>>>>  	pci_set_master(pdev);
>>>> -	retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
>>>> -	if (retval)
>>>> -		dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &pdev->dev,
>>>> -			   "Warning: pci_set_mwi returned %d\n", retval);
>>>> +	pci_try_set_mwi(pdev);
>>> Why remove the warning?  Presumably people want to know if pci_set_mwi
>>> failed.
>> Randy, this was your change, right?
> 
> Uh, I think that my thinking was like this:
> 
> pci_try_set_mwi() and pci_set_mwi() are both "try best effort"
> functions.  Neither of them guarantees that pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will succeed.  And in case of serious problems, pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will print a (KERN_DEBUG) message.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't mind restoring the former lpfc code if that is what
> should be done.
> 
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
> 
-
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/