linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mips: Introduce some IO-accessors optimizations

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:23:45 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
CC:     Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Vadim Vlasov <V.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        "Maciej W . Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
        <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mips: Introduce some IO-accessors optimizations

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:12:32AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > Thomas,
> > Any comment on the series? The changes aren't that comprehensive, so it would
> > be great to merge it in before the 5.10 merge window is opened.
> 
> for the both patches there is no user for it, so I don't see a reason
> to apply it.

@Thomas. I see your point. I'll merge them into my repo with Baikal-T1 CSP/BSP
patches and will deliver all at once when the kernel is ready to accept the
changes (most likely in 3 - 5 months).

@Jiaxun, if you've any hardware which for sure supports the strong UC
ordering, feel free to submit a patchset which activates the proposed here
config together with my STRONG_UC_ORDERING-alteration applied before your
changes.

-Sergey

> 
> Thomas.
> 
> -- 
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]