linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mlx5: only register devlink when ethernet is available

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: <6330398.ySWGKSmLdn@wuerfel>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:50:37 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>, Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mlx5: only register devlink when ethernet is available

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:04:54 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> 
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> We already took care of those issues, they only apply to Leon's tree
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/leon/linux-rdma.git/,
> this tree is meant to maintain MLX5 Shared code between netdev and
> linux-rdma trees prior to submission to both trees.
> 
> This patch is a non-shared code and it only exists in
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/leon/linux-rdma.git/log/?h=topic/net-next-mlx5.
> It is yet to be submitted to Dave's net/net-next tree. later on, this
> patch and all the others will go through the normal submission
> process.

Ok, I see. It would be nice if the process had a way to avoid build regressions
in linux-next, in particular if you already have a fix by the time a patch
that introduces a problem gets added.

Can you check if the fix for the second problem correctly removes the
unnecessary 64-bit division (as opposed to adding a call to div_s64()
or do_div()), and if it removes all traces of 'struct timespec' again?

	Arnd