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: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:18:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
cc: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>, shravankr@...dia.com, 
    davthompson@...dia.com, ndalvi@...hat.com, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi Luiz,
> 
> On 2/26/24 17:10, 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).
> 
> Hmm, new hw enablement typically goes through -next and not to
> the current fixes branch. And AFAICT this is new hw enablement,
> not a regression / bug-fix.
> 
> Is there any special reason why this needs to be in 6.8 ?

To me it sounded like fix to 1a218d312e65 ("platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: 
Add Mellanox BlueField PMC driver") and 423c3361855c ("platform/mellanox: 
mlxbf-pmc: Add support for BlueField-3") although not explicitly marked as 
such.

But I'm fine with taking these through for-next, it's relatively late into 
the cycle already anyway.

> For RHEL kernels you can cherry-pick patches from -next
> as necessary.

It's also possible to send them later directly to stable folks once 
Linus' tree has them after the next merge window if you feel they're 
useful for stable inclusion.

> > 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/
> 
> Hmm, those are not small patches, any other reason
> why this really should go to -next IMHO.

Those two linked patches are totally unrelated.


-- 
 i.