linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ata: libahci_platform: Remove bogus 32-bit DMA mask attempt

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:   Sat, 11 Dec 2021 09:04:55 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] ata: libahci_platform: Remove bogus 32-bit DMA
 mask attempt

On 2021/12/11 4:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:59:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> If 64-bit mask attempt fails, the 32-bit will fail by the very same reason.
>> Don't even try the latter. It's a continuation of the changes that contains,
>> e.g. dcc02c19cc06 ("sata_sil24: use dma_set_mask_and_coherent").
> 
> I understand that some people have nothing besides bikeshedding, but this patch
> seems fine to everybody, am I right? Can it be applied (it's independent from
> patch 1 anyways)?
> 

Yes, this one seems fine to me. It would be good to get a different review
though (I know hard to get reviews on ata patches...).
I will queue it for 5.17.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research