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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <95ec1fa5-1ab1-439f-96db-0ae2989915ce@starfivetech.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:41:28 +0800 From: Kevin Xie <kevin.xie@...rfivetech.com> To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mason.huo@...rfivetech.com>, <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>, <minda.chen@...rfivetech.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: Add PCIE_CONFIG_REQUEST_WAIT_MS waiting time value On 2023/12/1 2:35, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:03:55PM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote: >> On 2023/11/30 7:21, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:45:08AM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote: >> >> Add the PCIE_CONFIG_REQUEST_WAIT_MS marco to define the minimum waiting >> >> time between sending the first configuration request to the device and >> >> exit from a conventional reset (or after link training completes). >> > >> > s/marco/macro/ >> > >> > List the first event before the second one, i.e., the delay is from >> > exit from reset to the config request. >> >> OK,I will use "from A to B" instead of "between A and B". > > That's not my point. > > My point was you said "between B (config request) and A (exit from > reset)". "A" happens first, so it should be mentioned first. > Got it. >> > I assume there are follow-on patches that actually use this? Can we >> > make this the first patch in a series so we know we don't have an >> > unused macro lying around? >> >> Yes, we will use the marco in the next version of our PCIe controller patches. >> Here is the link of current version patch series: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231115114912.71448-20-minda.chen@starfivetech.com/T/#u >> >> Do you mean that I should put this patch back to the above series as >> one of the separate patches? > > Yes, please. Handling them as a group is less overhead and helps > avoid merge issues (if they're all in a series there's no possibility > that the user gets merged before the macro itself). > OK, I will put the patch back with these changes. > Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists