linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] infiniband: cxgb4: Eliminate duplicate barriers on weakly-ordered archs

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: <52cbc9d7-5a6b-5c8b-b930-058f5be62079@opengridcomputing.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:28:29 -0500
From:   Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        'kbuild test robot' <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild-all@...org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        timur@...eaurora.org, sulrich@...eaurora.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        'Steve Wise' <swise@...lsio.com>,
        'Doug Ledford' <dledford@...hat.com>,
        'Jason Gunthorpe' <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        'Casey Leedom' <leedom@...lsio.com>,
        'Michael Werner' <werner@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] infiniband: cxgb4: Eliminate duplicate barriers on
 weakly-ordered archs



On 3/22/2018 9:52 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 3/22/2018 9:40 AM, Steve Wise wrote:
>> I think all these iw_cxgb4 changes should be reverted until we really have a
>> plan for multi-platform that works.  
> I know you are looking to have support for PowerPC. 
>
> Isn't this a PowerPC problem? Why penalize other architectures?
>
> Do you see anything wrong with the code itself?

I worry it breaks PPC.

> I started this thread with the PowerPC develoeprs on your request.
> "RFC on writel and writel_relaxed"
>
> They are looking into adding the relaxed API support. Support can come
> in later. Why block this change now?
>
> benh@...nel.crashing.org:
> "I've been wanting to implement the relaxed accessors for a while but
> was battling with this to try to also better support WC, and due to
> other commitments, this somewhat fell down the cracks."
>
> I have seen four different responses on this thread. Since this is an
> architecture change it will take a while to get the semantics right.
> It won't happen in the new few days.

I appreciate you doing this.