linux-kernel - Re: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <478FD31E.5090104@keyaccess.nl>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:13:50 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Paul Rolland <rol@...917.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	rol <rol@...be.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80
 I/O delay override.

On 17-01-08 22:58, David Newall wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:

>> Over the course of a 100 messages or so in this thread it's been
>> determined that the best course of action is to keep the out for ISA
>> and replace it with udelay() for chipset logic. Now go away. 
> 
> Rather than this incredible rudeness, why don't you direct your energy
> towards convincing Alan of this.  He's the hold-out.

No he isn't and that's why I'm rude -- everything needs to be repeated over 
and over and over again. Read the thread(s). You didn't limit your reply to 
chipset logic and Alan even already submitted patches to isolate the delay 
for the chipset logic (PIC and PIT that is) where the expectation is that a 
simple udelay() will suffice.

We've already talked about ISA bus speed, and how it's not in a sane sense 
portably determinable, we've already talked about kernel parameters, about 
udelay and it's usefulness in early boot, about how your rude "Junk I/O" is 
exactly what is needed for some ISA devices and so on...

In fact, we're blue in the face from talking about it. So say something 
useful or go away.

Rene
--
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/