linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 02/22] NTB: Add peer indexed ports NTB API

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <003f01d250dd$16de5630$449b0290$@dell.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2016 17:56:02 -0500
From:   "Allen Hubbe" <Allen.Hubbe@...l.com>
To:     "'Allen Hubbe'" <Allen.Hubbe@...l.com>,
        "'Serge Semin'" <fancer.lancer@...il.com>, <jdmason@...zu.us>,
        <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <Xiangliang.Yu@....com>
Cc:     <Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru>, <linux-ntb@...glegroups.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/22] NTB: Add peer indexed ports NTB API

From: Allen Hubbe
> From: Serge Semin
> > Add new port-index NTB API. Additionally lets get rid of Primary and
> > Secondary topologies, since port-number can be effectively used instead.
> 
> Split into two patches please.
> 
> I see no harm to the TOPO changes, though I wonder if they are necessary.
> 

I am leaning more toward recommending that the topo api be left alone.

The topo changes to the ntb api complicate the Intel driver:
 - The changes add second branches where there had been just one before (need to check topo AND port now).
 - The changes also cause some complicated merge conflicts with https://github.com/davejiang/linux.git ntb.

See RE: [PATCH 10/22] NTB Intel: Add port-related NTB API callback methods

If we leave the ntb topo api as it was, then on multiport devices, if the local port is not the primary port, let it be one of potentially many secondary ports.  Or, if there is no distinction between primary/secondary on some hardware, let them all be primary.

This topo api doesn't have much value for existing drivers (that I know of), except for informative purposes.  So, my preference for changing it would be, only if necessary, and to minimize changes otherwise.

Allen