linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI/ERR: Split the fatal and non-fatal error recovery handling

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: <20201015064329.GA12987@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 07:43:29 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        sathyanarayanan.nkuppuswamy@...il.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        okaya@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI/ERR: Split the fatal and non-fatal error
 recovery handling

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 08:17:39AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/13/20 4:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > You might want to split out pcie_do_fatal_recovery and get rid of the
> > state argument:
> This is how it was before Keith merged fatal and non-fatal error recovery
> paths. When the comparison is between additional-parameter vs new-interface
> , I choose the former. But I can merge your change in next version.

But now you split the implementation.  Keith merged made complete sense
when the code was mostly identical.  But now that the code is separate
again it doesn't make sense to hide it under a common interface that
uses a flags value to call different functions.