linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/virtio: Use IDAs more efficiently

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:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 05:55:37 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/virtio: Use IDAs more efficiently

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:43:28PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:04:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:00:31AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static int virtio_gpu_context_create(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
> > >  
> > >  	if (handle < 0)
> > >  		return handle;
> > > +	handle++;
> > >  	virtio_gpu_cmd_context_create(vgdev, handle, nlen, name);
> > >  	return handle;
> > >  }
> > 
> > Uh.  This line is missing.
> > 
> > -       int handle = ida_alloc_min(&vgdev->ctx_id_ida, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       int handle = ida_alloc(&vgdev->ctx_id_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > It'll be there in v2 ;-)
> 
> I've touched the resource/object id handling too, see my "drm/virtio:
> rework ttm resource handling" patch series
> (https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/50382/).  Which still needs a
> review btw.

Um, according to patchwork, you only posted it yesterday.  Does DRM
normally expect a review within 24 hours?

> I think that series obsoletes patch 3/4 (object id fixes) of your
> series.  The other patches should rebase without too much trouble, you
> could do that as well when preparing v2 ...

It seems a little odd to me to expect a drive-by contributor (ie me) to
rebase their patches on top of a patch series which wasn't even posted
at the time they contributed their original patch.  If it was already
in -next, that'd be a reasonable request.