linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Intel PMC Core GBE LTR regression fix

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: <652cf483-6098-5e0-94ef-fdca344fa2ac@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 20:14:27 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, rajvi.jingar@...ux.intel.com, 
    platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Intel PMC Core GBE LTR regression fix

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, David E. Box wrote:

> This patch series addresses the network performance regression caused by
> commit 804951203aa5 ("platform/x86:intel/pmc: Combine core_init() and
> core_configure()").
> 
> Unfortunately, the regression is included in the recent Lunar Lake and
> Arrow Lake support patches in the review branch. Patches 1 and 2 remove the
> LTR ignore without a fix. They may be folded into the respective enabling
> patches indicated in the changelog. This is done so that the next patches
> fixing the regression can be backported to stable kernels with fewer, if
> any, conflicts.
> 
> Patches 3 and 4 provide the support needed for Patch 5 to move the GBE LTR
> ignore from probe-time to suspend/resume time. All three carry the same
> Fixes tag so that the stable kernels can pick them up without causing a
> separate suspend-time PC10 regression.
>
> Patches 6 and 7 then add the LTR suspend/resume fix for Arrow Lake and
> Lunar Lake. Of course, they cannot be folded into the enabling patches
> unless the LTR fixes (3-5) are applied before. Sorry about this :(.

Wow, this is messy...

So the best order would be placing 3-5 before these Arrow Lake and Lunar 
Lake commits in for-next:
  119652b855e6 ("platform/x86/intel/pmc: Add Lunar Lake M support to intel_pmc_core driver")
  f34dcf397286 ("platform/x86/intel/pmc: Add Arrow Lake S support to intel_pmc_core driver")
? And then folding 1-2 and 6-7 into those respective commits?

It makes me wonder though why those two commits couldn't have been delayed 
slightly to get these fixes included first... :-/


-- 
 i.