linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] via-rhine: Fix hanging with high CPU load on low-end broads.

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: <CACPM=kWL+Z6PH268qg=i0Nafrouq4O25+uFf8WLcE08azqpqpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:01:41 +0100
From:	Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <gurligebis@...too.org>
To:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, shemminger@...tta.com,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rl@...lgate.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] via-rhine: Fix hanging with high CPU load on low-end broads.

2012/1/4 Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <gurligebis@...too.org>:
> 2012/1/3 Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>:
>> Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <gurligebis@...too.org> :
>> [...]
>>> Is there anything else I should try out?
>>
>> Your computer is supposed to be moderately underpowered. Find someone
>> with an heavily overpowered one.
>
> Hmm, thats gonna be difficult, since it's an on-board chip in the box,
> so it's no possible to move it to something more powerful :)
>
>>> Also, would it be possible to push these changes to mainline as
>>
>> Probably. There has not been much objection nor comments so far.
>
> Nice, any objections David? :)

Sorry for repeating myself David, but would it be possible to get this
into net-next for 3.4 inclusion?
(I'm thinking that now is the right time for it to have a complete
release cycle in net-next before inclusion) :)

/Bjarke

>>> another CONFIG option (not sure if thats possible), so more people can
>>> enable it and test it? :)
>>
>> I'd rather not. It would not be terribly elegant and more CONFIG options
>> would not imply more testing.
>
> I agree, but if we push these changes to mainline directly, there is
> no need - it was more as a way of getting it to mainline, while still
> keeping the old way around, if it was needed.
>
> /Bjarke
>
>> --
>> Ueimor
--
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/