linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v6] xen pci backend driver.

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:	Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:05:40 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konrad@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v6] xen pci backend driver.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:58:50AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:07:19 -0400
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > The following patch implements the Xen pci backend for upstream Linux.
> > This is the host side counterpart to the frontend driver in
> > drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c. The PV protocol is also implemented by
> > frontend drivers in other OSes too, such as the BSDs.
> > 
> > This driver has a long history as an out of tree driver but I am
> > submitting it here as a single monolithic patch to aid review. Once it
> > has been reviewed and is considered suitable for merging can we perhaps
> > consider merging the equivalent git branch which maintains much of
> > history?
> 
> It looks pretty clean at first glance (though 128k worth of patch isn't
> an ideal way to split it).

4K lines of code is a lot :-) Thank you for taking a look at it.

> 
> But maybe the back end belongs in arch/x86/xen as it's really a arch
> specific PCI implementation at heart?  I don't want to be a bottleneck
> for any Xen specific PCI patches in the future, and other arches have a
> similar split (though not always with an ideal core vs arch split).

I was thinking about having it in the drivers/* as ideally it should
be a module. You really don't need to have it built in. I am not that
worried about you being a bottleneck - I am OK asking two weeks before
a merge for you to pull from my tree if I have some patches for it?

Or is there some other bottleneck that I am not aware of?
> 
> Figuring out some way to preserve the git history is probably a good
> idea, assuming it's not too much of a mess.  If it is, a more
> reasonable split and history using rebase could probably be contrived
> before merging it.

<nods>
> 
> -- 
> Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
--
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/