linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

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]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:07:53 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: shravankr@...dia.com, davthompson@...dia.com, ndalvi@...hat.com,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

On 2024-02-26 11:59, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-02-26 11:04, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-02-26 08:27, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:57:28 -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mlxbf-pmc driver fails to load when the firmware reports a new but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> yet implemented performance block. I can reproduce this today with a
>>>>>> Bluefield-3 card and UEFI version 4.6.0-18-g7d063bb-BId13035, since
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> reports the new clock_measure performance block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This[1] patch from Shravan implements the clock_measure support and
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> solve the issue. But this series avoids the situation by ignoring and
>>>>>> logging unsupported performance blocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your contribution, it has been applied to my local
>>>>> review-ilpo branch. Note it will show up in the public
>>>>> platform-drivers-x86/review-ilpo branch only once I've pushed my
>>>>> local branch there, which might take a while.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Ilpo and thanks Hans for the review.
>>>>
>>>> The only detail is that we probably want this merged for 6.8 since
>>>> the driver doesn't currently load with the configuration mentioned above.
>>>
>>> Oh, sorry, I missed the mention in the coverletter.
>>>
>>> So you'd want I drop these from review-ilpo branch as there they end
>>> up into for-next branch, and they should go through Hans instead who
>>> handles fixes branch for this cycle?
>>
>> If that's the path to get this series merged for this cycle then yes,
>> but let's see if Hans agrees (sorry that I didn't know this before
>> posting).
>>
>> One additional detail is that this series is on top of linux-next, which
>> has two additional mlxbf-pmc changes:
>>
>> *
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39be055af3506ce6f843d11e45d71620f2a96e26.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
>> *
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
>>
>> Maybe those two should be included for 6.8 as well?
> 
> Those look a new feature to me so they belong to for-next. So no, they
> will not end up into 6.8 (to fixes branch). If the 2 patches in this
> series do not apply without some for-next targetting dependencies, you
> should rebase on top of fixes branch and send a new version.

Understood.

> About those two patches, please also see my reply. I intentionally only 2
> patches of that series because I wanted to see sysfs documentation first
> so you should resend those two patches to for-next with sysfs
> documentation.

I'm actually not author of the other patches :)

- Luiz