linux-kernel - RE: [RFC net-next v02 1/3] net: hinic3: module initialization and tx/rx logic

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <008b01db4ecf$b529e4a0$1f7dade0$@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 10:59:36 +0200
From: Gur Stavi <gur.stavi@...wei.com>
To: 'Bjorn Helgaas' <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC: "Gongfan (Eric, Chip)" <gongfan1@...wei.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet
	<corbet@....net>, Cai Huoqing <cai.huoqing@...ux.dev>, "Guoxin (D)"
	<guoxin09@...wei.com>, shenchenyang <shenchenyang1@...ilicon.com>, "zhoushuai
 (A)" <zhoushuai28@...wei.com>, "Wulike (Collin)" <wulike1@...wei.com>,
	"shijing (A)" <shijing34@...wei.com>, Meny Yossefi <meny.yossefi@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next v02 1/3] net: hinic3: module initialization and tx/rx logic

> Is the PPF selected dynamically by the driver?  By firmware on the
> NIC?

Selected dynamically by PF driver but initial submission only contains
VF logic.

> > +	# Fields of HW and management structures are little endian and will
> not
> > +	# be explicitly converted
> 
> I guess this comment is here to explain the !CPU_BIG_ENDIAN below?
> That's quite an unusual dependency.
> 

Yes. Otherwise the code will be swamped with cpu_to_le and le_to_cpu.
Microsoft and Amazon drivers have it as well. I wonder if all other
drivers were tested on big endian host.
Dependency on CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN would be nicer but unfortunately x86
arch does not define it.

> > +	depends on 64BIT && !CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
> 

Other comments were addressed in files for next submission.