linux-kernel - RE: [v2, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size 128/256 in dwmac4

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: <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B92D26F@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 09:24:31 +0000
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     biao huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "yt.shen@...iatek.com" <yt.shen@...iatek.com>,
        "jianguo.zhang@...iatek.comi" <jianguo.zhang@...iatek.comi>,
        "boon.leong.ong@...el.com" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [v2, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size
 128/256 in dwmac4

From: biao huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
Date: Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:31:44

> On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:24 +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > From: biao huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
> > Date: Fri, May 24, 2019 at 07:33:37
> > 
> > > any comments about this patch?
> > 
> > Can you please test your series on top of this one [1] and let me know 
> > the output of :
> > # ethtool -t eth0
> "ethtol -T eth0"? This patch only affect hash table filter, seems no
> relation to timestamp.
> > 
> > Just to make sure that this patch does not introduce any regressions. The 
> > remaining ones of the series look fine by me!
> > 
> > [1] 
> which one? Did I miss anything here?

Sorry, my mail client tried to wrap the long link and ended up in a 
loooong email.

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?series=109699

Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu