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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100524195200.etvygryty8g0gswc@imap.linux.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 May 2010 19:52:00 -0400
From:	Corinna Schultz <cschultz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, djwong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] calgary: Increase the maximum PHB bus number

On Apr 06, 2010, Darrick J. Wong 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?
> 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?

This patch still hasn't been picked up by a maintainer.

Are there any objections?

-Corinna Schultz
IBM LTC

--
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/