linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: conditional resource-reallocation through kernel parameter pci=realloc

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: <4E0CAE86.6020901@hartkopp.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:12:38 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
CC:	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: conditional resource-reallocation through kernel
 parameter pci=realloc

On 30.06.2011 19:07, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:04:55 +0200
> Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 30.06.2011 10:09, Ram Pai wrote:
>>> Multiple attempts to dynamically reallocate pci resources have unfortunately
>>> lead to regressions. Though we continue to fix the regressions and fine tune the
>>> dynamic-reallocation behavior, we have not reached a acceptable state yet.
>>>
>>> This patch provides a interim solution. It disables dynamic-reallocation; by
>>> default, with the ability to enable it through pci=realloc kernel command line
>>> parameter.
>>
>> What is the advantage of creating an 'interim' kernel parameter instead of
>> reverting the problematic commit and queue up a proper solution for 3.1 ?
>>
>> A kernel parameter needs to be observed, documented and set appropriately.
>>
>> I would prefer to have an automatic solution - if not in 3.0 then in 3.1 ...
> 
> Yeah, we all want an automatic solution, but we still haven't been able
> to achieve one.  My hope is that a parameter will let us keep the code
> upstream for Ram and others to keep fixing, then we can move to using
> it by default in some future release.  Keeping the code upstream but
> behind a param should make development easier; at least that's the goal.

What's wrong with the "[PATCH 0/4 v2] PCI: fix cardbus and sriov regressions"?
To me it looked good - or don't you trust that fix right now?

Regards,
Oliver
--
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/