linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3 v2] PCI/ASPM: Remove struct aspm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 26 Sep 2021 15:31:15 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kw@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3 v2] PCI/ASPM: Remove struct aspm_latency

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:49:23AM +0200, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
> From: "Bolarinwa O. Saheed" <refactormyself@...il.com>
> 
> To validate and set link latency capability, `struct aspm_latency` and
> related members defined within `struct pcie_link_state` are used.
> However, since there are not many access to theses values, it is possible
> to directly access and compute these values.
> Doing this will also reduce the dependency on `struct pcie_link_state`.
> 
> The series removes `struct aspm_latency` and related members within 
> `struct pcie_link_state`. All latencies are now calculated when needed.
> 
> Changes in this version:
>  - directly access downstream by calling `pci_function_0()` instead of
>    used the `struct pcie_link_state`
> 
> Saheed O. Bolarinwa (3):
>   PCI/ASPM: Remove link latencies cached within struct pcie_link_state
>   PCI/ASPM: Remove struct pcie_link_state.acceptable
>   PCI/ASPM: Remove struct aspm_latency
> 
>  drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

Hi Saheed, what is this series based on?  The other series
(https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210916085206.2268-1-refactormyself@gmail.com)
aplies cleanly to my "main" branch (v5.15-rc2), but this one doesn't
apply either there or on top of the other.

Bjorn