linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] e1000,e1000e,igb: make ioport free for adapters that need NO ioport resources

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: <485F5EA5.9050503@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:28:21 +0900
From:	Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tomohiro Kusumi <kusumi.tomohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] e1000,e1000e,igb: make ioport free for adapters that
 need NO ioport resources

Dear Auke

>> * [PATCH 1/3] e1000: make ioport free
>> * [PATCH 2/3] e1000e: make ioport free
>> * [PATCH 3/3] igb: make ioport free
> 
> I think patch 2 and 3 are way too large since igb and e1000e can be totally ioport
> free at all times. There is no need to keep compatibility code for ioport in those
> drivers as it's unlikely that this will ever be needed.

I left an old implementation in case adapters that need ioport resources appear,
but it's true that these codes are a little redundant for igb and e1000e drivers.

> So, perhaps you can remove the ioport code from those 2 drivers (e1000e/igb)
> completely and resubmit to Jeff Kirsher?

  OK, I'll send them later.

Best regards,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>

--
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/