linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Include the limit on the number of pfns we can handle

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:	Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:20:38 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
	"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
	"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Include the limit on the number
 of pfns we can handle

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@...cle.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 1:46 PM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > devel@...uxdriverproject.org; olaf@...fle.de; apw@...onical.com;
> > jasowang@...hat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Include the limit on the number
> > of pfns we can handle
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:15:08PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > Increase the maximum number of pfns we can handle is a single vmbus
> > packet.
> >                                                     ^^ in
> 
> Thanks Dan. I am traveling in India and it shows. I have already sent a corrected patch.
> 

Yeah.  I saw that.  Thanks.

> > >
> > 
> > What are the user visible effects of this patch?
> The current code will drop these packets that have more PFNs than the limit.
> Upping the limit will mitigate this problem.
> 

Meanwhile, the revised patch says that it is not a bugfix.  It sort of
sounds like upping the limit does improve performance for some people?

I am confused now.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/