linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: reimplement P2P bridge 1K I/O windows (Intel P64H2)

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, 9 Jul 2012 16:21:09 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Yeisley <dan.yeisley@...sys.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: reimplement P2P bridge 1K I/O windows (Intel P64H2)

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the bridge window assignment code, e.g., pbus_size_io(), should
>> pay attention to dev->io_window_1k, too, but I didn't fix that.
>
> Please check attached patch that will fix pbus_size_io.

Thanks for posting this again.  I had looked for it, but couldn't find it.

> You may fold the patch in your patch, or could split your patch to
> two. First one
> only add io_window_1k, and second one will use io_window_1k. Then could put my
> patch between them.

What bad things would happen if I just appended your patch to the end
of this series?  Would that break bisection in some scenario?

Bjorn
--
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/