linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override

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, 30 Dec 2007 01:30:37 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
cc:	dpreed@...d.com, Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, hpa@...or.com,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> 
> This fixes "hwclock" triggered boottime hangs for a few HP/Compaq laptops
> and might as such be applicable to 2.6.24 still.

It's not a regression as far as I can see (ie we've always done that port 
80 access for slow-down), and quite frankly, I think the code is horribly 
ugly.

Using a DMI quirk for something like this is just not maintainable. Are we 
going to live with doing new quirks forever? I'd rather just remove the 
slowdown entirely (obviously that is not for 2.6.24 either, though!), and 
drivers that then are shown to really need it could use their *own* ports.

		Linus
--
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/