linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing) sets of IRQs

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

Message-ID: <d393e6f3-bc45-e038-9a5e-e51018f0a15a@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:33:51 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing)
 sets of IRQs

On 10/30/18 11:22 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:09:04AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Pretty trivial, below. This also keeps the queue mapping calculations
>> more clean, as we don't have to do one after we're done allocating
>> IRQs.
> 
> Yep, this addresses my concern. It less efficient than PCI since PCI
> can usually jump straight to a valid vector count in a single iteration
> where this only subtracts by 1. I really can't be bothered to care for
> optimizing that, so this works for me! :) 

It definitely is less efficient than just getting the count that we
can support, but it's at probe time so I could not really be bothered
either.

Can I add your reviewed-by?

-- 
Jens Axboe