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

Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:49:27 -0700
From:   Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan 
        <sathyanarayanan.nkuppuswamy@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, okaya@...nel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ashok <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 Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:43 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Agreed. Already included this change in v6.