linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] calgary: Increase the maximum PHB bus number

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: <20100406180914.GN22820@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:09:14 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To:	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Jon D. Mason" <jdmason@...zu.us>,
	discuss@...-64.org, Corinna Schultz <coschult@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] calgary: Increase the maximum PHB bus number

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:18:05AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:37:50AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:03:46AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 04:59:01PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -#define MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS		8 /* how many PHBs in total? */
> > > > -#define MAX_NUM_CHASSIS		8 /* max number of chassis */
> > > > -/* MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM is the maximal possible dev->bus->number */
> > > > -#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM		(MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS * MAX_NUM_CHASSIS * 2)
> > > > +/*
> > > > +   The maximum PHB bus number.
> > > > +   x3950M2 (rare): 8 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis = 384
> > > > +   x3950M2: 4 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis        = 192
> > > > +   x3950 (PCIE): 8 chassis, 32 PHBs per chassis   = 256
> > > > +   x3950 (PCIX): 8 chassis, 16 PHBs per chassis   = 128
> > > > +*/
> > > > +#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM		384
> > > > +
> > > >  #define PHBS_PER_CALGARY	4
> > > 
> > > We'll end up wasting a few bytes on small systems, but I don't think
> > > it's enough to matter on these fairly large systems. As far as I'm
> > > concerned, patch is fine.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
> > 
> > Hmm... has this patch been queued up by anyone for the .34 merge
> > window?
> 
> I don't maintain a separate Calgary patchset anymore, hopefully Ingo
> or one of the other x86 maintainers have picked it up?

Still not in 2.6.34-rc3.  Are there any objections to this patch?  I've not
heard any complaints since my original posting... or did it simply get lost in
the noise?

--D
--
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/