linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] cxl: Avoid to create dax regions for type2 accelerators

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: <ea8afddb-9e97-98f6-b1ee-b5394d35e8c0@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 08:27:01 +0100
From: Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Dave Jiang
 <dave.jiang@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
 Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
 Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
 Ben Cheatham <benjamin.cheatham@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cxl: Avoid to create dax regions for type2
 accelerators

On 10/17/24 07:29, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Alejandro,
>
> Alejandro Lucero Palau <alucerop@....com> writes:
>
>> I did comment on this some time ago and I'm doing it again.
>>
>>
>> This is originally part of the type2 patchset, and I'm keeping it in
>> V4. I do not understand why you pick code changes (you explicitly said
>> that in the first RFC) from there and use it here, and without
>> previous discussion about this necessity in the list. I do not think
>> this is usual, at least in other kernel subsystems I'm more familiar
>> with, so I will raise this in today's cxl open source collaboration
>> sync.
> No.  I picked this change from Dan's series as follows,
>
> https://eclists.intel.com/sympa//arc/linux-bkc/2024-10/msg00018.html
>
> So, I added co-developed-by and signed-off-by of Dan.
>
> IIUC, your picked this change from Dan's series too?

Look, this is not going well.

You specifically said in your first patchset you considered the type2 
support patchset complete but too large or complex, so you were taking 
parts of it as a prelude for making it easier to review/accept. Just 
face that and not twist the argument.

FWIW, I'm against you doing so because:

1) You should have commented in the type2 patchset about your concern, 
and gave advice about doing such a prelude (by me) or offer yourself for 
doing it.

2) Just following your approach, anyone could do the same for any 
patchset sent to the list. This is not a good precedent.

3) If this is going to be allowed/approved, I'm not going to be 
comfortable within this community. If it is just me, I guess it will not 
be a big loss.

None has commented yet except you and me, what I do not know if it is 
because this is a nasty discussion they do not want to get entangle 
with, or because they just think your approach is OK. If not further 
comment and your patchset is accepted, nothing else will be needed to say.

> Feel free to include this change in your series.  If your patchset is
> merged firstly, I will rebase on yours and drop this change.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying