linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] s390/vfio-ap: reset queues filtered from the guest's AP config

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: <a54e223c-8965-480c-9361-b483b47502d0@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:21:23 -0500
From: Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
        imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] s390/vfio-ap: reset queues filtered from the
 guest's AP config


On 1/16/24 1:08 PM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:54:34PM -0500, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
> ...
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index 88aff8b81f2f..20eac8b0f0b9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -83,10 +83,10 @@ struct ap_matrix {
>>   };
>>   
>>   /**
>> - * struct ap_queue_table - a table of queue objects.
>> - *
>> - * @queues: a hashtable of queues (struct vfio_ap_queue).
>> - */
>> +  * struct ap_queue_table - a table of queue objects.
>> +  *
>> +  * @queues: a hashtable of queues (struct vfio_ap_queue).
>> +  */
>>   struct ap_queue_table {
>>   	DECLARE_HASHTABLE(queues, 8);
>>   };
> If this change is intended?


Shall I fix this and submit a v5?