linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpu: nova: remove Spec and Revision types

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: <39adabe3-d19b-4348-b977-919d1b00ed56@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 10:27:37 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Edwin Peer <epeer@...dia.com>,
 Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
 Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpu: nova: remove Spec and Revision types

On 10/25/25 3:01 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Sat Oct 25, 2025 at 2:14 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote:
...
> Now you have to open code reading the register, get the Chipset instance and
> manually format the revision, which was previously done through a Display impl
> of Revision. And the subsequent patch introduces even more open coded logic in
> the constructor of struct Gpu.
> 
> Instead of removing Spec, we should improve it by giving it its own Display
> impl, such that this code can become:
> 

Sure, I'll do it that way.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard