linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] block: Add PCI P2P flag for request queue and check support for requests

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Sep 2018 16:26:27 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/13] block: Add PCI P2P flag for request queue and
 check support for requests



On 01/09/18 02:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:11:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I think this belongs in the caller - both the validity check, and
>> passing in NOMERGE for this type of request. I don't want to impose
>> this overhead on everything, for a pretty niche case.
> 
> It is just a single branch, which will be predicted as not taken
> for non-P2P users.  The benefit is that we get proper error checking
> by doing it in the block code.

I personally agree with Christoph. But if there's consensus in the other
direction or this is a real blocker moving this forward, I can remove it
for the next version.

Logan