linux-kernel - Re: [ 15/48] e1000e: Remove special case for 82573/82574 ASPM L1 disablement

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, 02 Jul 2012 08:21:24 +0100
From:	Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>
To:	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
CC:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Jeff Pieper <jeffrey.e.pieper@...el.com>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [ 15/48] e1000e: Remove special case for 82573/82574 ASPM  L1
 disablement

On 01/07/2012 23:59, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> From: Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>
>>
>> commit 59aed95263bdd0e2b48eb9be5a94346d2d4abf90 upstream.
> This patch still seems both lovely and unnecessary, and I would prefer
> that it not be part of 3.2-stable.  If I understood the replies before,
> it is safe to drop it, right?

My only comment about this would be that I haven't tested it without
both patches, although I can't see why there would necessarily be a
problem with only having one patch and not the other.

HTH,
Chris

-- 
Chris Boot
bootc@...tc.net

--
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/