linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

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:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 19:11:57 +0300
From:   Shlomo Pongratz <shlomopongratz@...il.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        andrew.maier@...eticom.com, logang@...tatee.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, jgg@...dia.com,
        Shlomo Pongratz <shlomop@...ops.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

On 31/03/2022 17:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:35:39AM +0300, Shlomo Pongratz wrote:
>> In commit 7b94b53db34f ("PCI/P2PDMA: Add Intel Sky Lake-E Root Ports B, C, D to
>> the whitelist")
>> Andrew Maier added the Sky Lake-E additional devices
>> 2031, 2032 and 2033 root ports to the already existing 2030 device.
>>
>> The Intel devices 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 which are root ports A, B, C and D,
>> respectively and if all exist they will occupy slots 0 till 3 in that order.
> Please make this a sentence.
>
>> The original code handled only the case where the devices in the whitelist are
>> host bridges and assumed that they will be found on slot 0.
>>
>> This assumption doesn't hold for root ports so an explicit test was added to
>> cover this case.
> Please update the subject line to match the style of previous ones.
>
> Please wrap the commit log to fit in 80 columns (including the 4
> spaces added by "git log") like previous commits.
>
> Please figure out whether you want "Sky Lake-E" or "SkyLake-E" and use
> it consistently in commit log and code comments.  It seems to be
> "Skylake" on intel.com, so I suggest using that.
I think that you are right and Skylake is indeed a better name,
but since Andrew Maier in his original patch used Sky Lake-E it is
better to stick with it. (SkyLake-E will be removed).
>
> Please use imperative mood, e.g., instead of "an explicit test was
> added ...," write "add a test to cover this case."  Do the same in
> code comments.
>
> Bjorn
Shlomo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@...nel.org]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2022, 5:31 PM
*To:* Shlomo Pongratz
*Cc:* linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
andrew.maier@...eticom.com, logang@...tatee.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, 
jgg@...dia.com, Shlomo Pongratz
*Subject:* [PATCH V5 1/1] Intel Sky Lake-E host root ports check.

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:35:39AM +0300, Shlomo Pongratz wrote:
>> In commit 7b94b53db34f ("PCI/P2PDMA: Add Intel Sky Lake-E Root Ports B, C, D to
>> the whitelist")
>> Andrew Maier added the Sky Lake-E additional devices
>> 2031, 2032 and 2033 root ports to the already existing 2030 device.
>>
>> The Intel devices 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 which are root ports A, B, C and D,
>> respectively and if all exist they will occupy slots 0 till 3 in that order.
> Please make this a sentence.
>
>> The original code handled only the case where the devices in the whitelist are
>> host bridges and assumed that they will be found on slot 0.
>>
>> This assumption doesn't hold for root ports so an explicit test was added to
>> cover this case.
> Please update the subject line to match the style of previous ones.
>
> Please wrap the commit log to fit in 80 columns (including the 4
> spaces added by "git log") like previous commits.
>
> Please figure out whether you want "Sky Lake-E" or "SkyLake-E" and use
> it consistently in commit log and code comments.  It seems to be
> "Skylake" on intel.com, so I suggest using that.
>
> Please use imperative mood, e.g., instead of "an explicit test was
> added ...," write "add a test to cover this case."  Do the same in
> code comments.
>
> Bjorn