linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Set all 24 bits of PCI class code

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: <20220107114332.GA22419@lpieralisi>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 11:43:32 +0000
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>,
        Roman Bacik <roman.bacik@...adcom.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Set all 24 bits of PCI class code

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 12:00:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 07:13:06PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 January 2022 09:51:48 Ray Jui wrote:
> > > On 1/5/2022 1:35 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> 
> > > 2. I suppose 'PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL' is defined in some common PCI
> > > header in a separate patch as described in the commit message. Then how
> > > come these patches are not constructed with a patch series?
> > 
> > Yes, PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL is a new constant for common pci header
> > file defined in patch linked in commit message.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211220145140.31898-1-pali@kernel.org/
> > 
> > Originally I included this change in v1 of linked patch in December but
> > I realized that it does not match standard PCI config space (different
> > offset 0x43c vs 0x08 and also different shift 0x8 vs 0x0) and probably
> > there is something either incorrect or really non-standard. So later in
> > December I dropped iproc_pcie_check_link() change in v2 of the linked
> > patch where is introduced PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL and now sent new
> > change for iproc_pcie_check_link() separately.
> > 
> > Technically, linked patch in commit message is just extracting code into
> > the common macros without any functional changed. But change in this
> > iproc_pcie_check_link() has also functional change as now also lower 8
> > bits of class code are changed. So in my opinion this patch should be
> > really separate of linked patch.
> > 
> > I hope that Lorenzo and Bjorn take patches in correct order...
> 
> If patches are not sent together in a series, you can't assume
> anything about the order they'll be applied in.  Adding a note about
> "this patch depends patch X" helps a little but adds a fair amount of
> friction to the process.

Indeed, more so given that the dependency requires an ACK from other
maintainers - I certainly can't pull this patch as-is.

Lorenzo