linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] CXL Port Enumeration and Plans for v5.14

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 10:31:54 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] CXL Port Enumeration and Plans for v5.14

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:24 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 May 2021 15:51:14 -0700
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > Changes since v2 [1]:
> > - Add some rationale for moving definitions out of mem.c into mem.h
> >   (Jonathan)
> >
> > - Fixup CXL_DEVICE_REGS kernel doc and declare the fixup for the
> >   struct cxl_mem kernel-doc in the changelog (Jonathan)
> >
> > - Fixup cxl_setup_device_regs() kernel-doc (Jonathan)
> >
> > - Cleanup comment in cxl_root_alloc() (Jonathan)
> >
> > - [not changed] refactor device creation into alloc_and_add()
> >   anti-pattern.
> >
> > - Add kernel doc to cxl_address_space_dev_add() to clarify why @host is
> >   needed as an arg. (Jonathan)
> >
> > - Describe what the port devices are representing in "cxl/port:
> >   Introduce cxl_port objects" (Jonathan)
> >
> > - Explain the rationale for /sys/bus/cxl (Bjorn)
> >
> > [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/161728744224.2474040.12854720917440712854.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> What's the base for this series?  Given it was nearly ready to go
> (as far as I'm concerned anyway), I thought I'd give it a spin but
> seems it doesn't have some changes from fixes that have gone upstream.

I did fail to rebase, will rectify, but I did not fail to include a
base-commit entry at the bottom of this cover letter. Will resend
based on -rc1 now that it is out.