linux-kernel - RE: [patch 0/2] Intel IOMMU Suspend/Resume Support

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:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:57:11 -0700
From:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:	'Andrew Lutomirski' <amluto@...il.com>
CC:	"'mingo@...e.hu'" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"'dwmw2@...radead.org'" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"'kyle@...hat.com'" <kyle@...hat.com>,
	"'mgross@...ux.intel.com'" <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
	"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org'" 
	<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [patch 0/2] Intel IOMMU Suspend/Resume Support

>Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Intel IOMMU Suspend/Resume Support
>
>It looks like patch 1 calls dmar_reenable_qi but patch 2 defines it.
>
>In 2.6.29, there's no dmar_disable_qi that I can see.  Can you respin
>these against something a little less scary than -tip during a merge
>window?  (Especially since -stable will need this soon.)
>

dmar_disable_qi() is defined in tip tree already. This patch set is based on the tip tree. I do have another version of the patch set which is based on 2.6.29.

Ingo,

Do you think which tree this patch set should based on?

Thanks.

-Fenghua

--
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/