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: <51058521.f6SstSCt2o@wuerfel>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:02:33 +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,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mlx5: only register devlink when ethernet is available

On Friday, June 17, 2016 5:50:14 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:04:54 PM CEST Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> The reason we added this tree is to get 0-day testing but currently it
> makes some unwanted noise
> so we will remove it until we figure it out.

I think you can simply ask Fengguang Wu to add your git tree to the list
of trees he pulls from for the 0-day test bot.

> > 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?
> >
> 
> Yes, same thing, already fixed, will reply to that thread.

Ok, thanks for the confirmation!

	Arnd