linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] PCI: Solve two bridge window sizing issues

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, 11 Jun 2024 18:12:06 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] PCI: Solve two bridge window sizing issues

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 04:10:48PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2024, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Here's a series that contains two fixes to PCI bridge window sizing
> > algorithm. Together, they should enable remove & rescan cycle to work
> > for a PCI bus that has PCI devices with optional resources and/or
> > disparity in BAR sizes.
> > 
> > For the second fix, I chose to expose find_resource_space() from
> > kernel/resource.c because it should increase accuracy of the cannot-fit
> > decision (currently that function is called find_resource()). In order
> > to do that sensibly, a few improvements seemed in order to make its
> > interface and name of the function sane before exposing it. Thus, the
> > few extra patches on resource side.
> > 
> > v3:
> 
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> It's a bit unclear to me what is your view about the status of this 
> series? I see you placed these first into some wip branches and then into 
> resource branch but the state of the patches in patchwork is still marked 
> as "New" nor have you sent any notice they'd have been "applied".
> 
> I'm thinking this from the perspective of whether I should send v4 with 
> those minor comments from Andy addressed or not? I could also send those
> minor things as separate patches on top of the series if that's 
> easier/better for you.

Sorry, I dropped the ball in the middle here.  The pci/resource branch
has been in linux-next since May 29, but I forgot to send a note.  If
you want to tweak for Andy's comments, send an incremental patch and
I'll be happy to squash it/them in.