linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: use effective affinity mask

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: <KL1P15301MB00061170992D6D998A590B9CBF560@KL1P15301MB0006.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 01:27:02 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jake Oshins <jakeo@...rosoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@...rosoft.com>,
        "Chris Valean (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-chvale@...rosoft.com>,
        "Adrian Suhov (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-adsuho@...rosoft.com>,
        Simon Xiao <sixiao@...rosoft.com>,
        'Eyal Mizrachi' <eyalmi@...lanox.com>,
        "Jack Morgenstein" <jackm@...lanox.com>,
        Armen Guezalian <armeng@...lanox.com>,
        Firas Mahameed <firas@...lanox.com>,
        Tziporet Koren <tziporet@...lanox.com>,
        Daniel Jurgens <danielj@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: use effective affinity mask

> From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@...nel.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 5:08 PM
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 08:30:53PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >
> > Please consider this for v4.14, if it's not too late.
> 
> What would be the rationale for putting it in v4.14?  After the merge
> window, I usually only merge fixes for problems introduced during the
> merge window, or for serious regressions.  I can't tell if this fits
> into that or not.

The patch was sent last Wednesday and I hoped it could catch the 
merge window to be in v4.14 so we won't have to request a backport
for the v4.14 stable kernel in future. And I was not exactly sure when
the merge window was. Sorry :-)

The patch is not fixing a serious regression. It just fixes a long standing
issue from the beginning of the Hyper-V vPCI driver: 1 of 7 Mellanox 
VFs of a 32-vCPU VM running on Hyper-V may not receive interrupts.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan