linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] PCI: Allow extend_bridge_window() to shrink resource if necessary

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200115145934.GJ2838@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:59:34 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] PCI: Allow extend_bridge_window() to shrink
 resource if necessary

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:51:02PM +0000, Nicholas Johnson wrote:
> Sorry, I was not meant to say you were not interested in getting it as 
> good as possible. At the time, you had a goal to achieve (which you did) 
> and at that point in time, it would not have been feasible to use 
> pci=hpmemsize or similar before my patches were applied:
> 
>   c13704f5685d ("PCI: Avoid double hpmemsize MMIO window assignment")
>   d7b8a217521c ("PCI: Add "pci=hpmmiosize" and "pci=hpmmioprefsize" parameters")
> 
> What I was trying to say was not that you were not interested, but more 
> that it was not a primary motivation for you at the time. Does this 
> sound more accurate? Poor wording on my behalf.

Yes, it does and no worries :-) Just wanted to clarify that one.