linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] EDAC, amd64: Add Family 17h Model 10h support.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO6F7DmPHBpf299g40pzUAbL-JK5S2eNbhwXN0kVmLhtwcqDqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:39:17 -0400
From:   Michael Jin <mikhail.jin@...il.com>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] EDAC, amd64: Add Family 17h Model 10h support.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Jin <mikhail.jin@...il.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:41 AM
>> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>; Ghannam, Yazen
>> <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>; Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab@...nel.org>
>> Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Michael Jin
>> <mikhail.jin@...il.com>; stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: [PATCH V2] EDAC, amd64: Add Family 17h Model 10h support.
>>
>> Add support for ECC error decoding on family 17h models 10h-2fh.
>>
>
> Can you please make this more specific? Something like "Add PCI device IDs
> for Fam17h Models 10h-2Fh so that amd64_edac_mod will load".

I have submitted patch v3 with a commit message that is more specific.

>>       case 0x17:
>> +             /* Check if CPU model is in range 10h-2fh */
>
> This comment is not needed because it's obvious from the code.

The comment in patch v2 has been removed in patch v3.

Thanks,
Michael