linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

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: <20100908213740.GA7550@void.printf.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Sep 2010 22:37:41 +0100
From:	Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...sta.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@...oo.es>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:38:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I noticed no throughput drop neither with PIO transfers nor
> > with DMA (tested on MPC8569E CPU), while latencies should be
> > greatly improved.
> 
> This patchset isn't causing any problems yet, but may do so in the
> future and will impact the validity of any testing.  It seems to be
> kind of stuck.  Should I drop it all?

I suggest keeping it -- I'll find time to test it out here soon, and
will keep it in mind as a possible regression cause.

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@...top.org>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
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/