linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] RDMA: hfi1: cpumasks usage fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250625104113.GE17401@unreal>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:41:13 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] RDMA: hfi1: cpumasks usage fixes

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:23:36PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 6/21/25 11:03 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:12:29AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 03:39:36PM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> >>> The driver uses cpumasks API in a non-optimal way; partially because of
> >>> absence of proper functions. Fix this and nearby logic.
> >>>
> >>> Yury Norov [NVIDIA] (7):
> >>>   cpumask: add cpumask_clear_cpus()
> >>>   RDMA: hfi1: fix possible divide-by-zero in find_hw_thread_mask()
> >>>   RDMA: hfi1: simplify find_hw_thread_mask()
> >>>   RDMA: hfi1: simplify init_real_cpu_mask()
> >>>   RDMA: hfi1: use rounddown in find_hw_thread_mask()
> >>>   RDMA: hfi1: simplify hfi1_get_proc_affinity()
> >>>   RDMI: hfi1: drop cpumask_empty() call in hfi1/affinity.c
> >>>
> >>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/affinity.c | 96 +++++++++++----------------
> >>>  include/linux/cpumask.h               | 12 ++++
> >>>  2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Dennis?
> > 
> > So?.. Any feedback?
> 
> I'm ambivalent about this patch series. It looks OK but I don't think it's
> really fixing anything.

Yeas, I applied because more code was deleted than added.