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, 05 Jun 2007 10:27:19 -0700
From:	"Kok, Auke" <>
To:	Milton Miller <>, Jeff Garzik <>
CC:	David Acker <>,,,
	Jeff Kirsher <>,
	John Ronciak <>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <>,
	"Kok, Auke" <>,
	Scott Feldman <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and
 el bits)

Milton Miller wrote:
> First, a question especially to Auke and Jeff:
> Since this patch both reverts the broken change that is currently in 
> -rc and creates the fixed driver, I'm not sure I like the subject 
> stating "on ARM", although that is the feature of the rewrite, and was 
> the intent of merging the previous patch.  This is actually its a fix 
> for all systems relative to current, including those where dma is not 
> cache coherent, (unlike a simple revert).
> Should we just put a comment about reverting the previous patch early 
> in the change log?


> Something like this:
> Fix the e100 receiver handling, supporting cache incoherent DMA.
> Discard the concept of setting the S (suspend) bit with the EL bit 
> introduced in commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094.  In 
> addition to it not setting either bit, the hardware doesn't work that 
> way.
> Thoughts?

the same comment I made about the coding style counts for this too: I will clean 
up the patch and gladly adjust the topic, which in this case seems the right 
thing to do. I am too grateful that you guys are digging into this so deeply to 
send you back with comments on style - I'll gladly fix that up :)

> Here is the changelog portion of the latest patch (quoted), with my 
> comments thrown in:

OK, I will buffer this info and make sure this gets picked up on the final version.

this opens up another question:

We need to make sure that now that we're getting closer to 2.6.22 we don't end 
up killing e100 in it. Should we drop the current fixes in it to be on the safe 
side and aim for 2.6.23? I would hate to see an untested codepath breaking e100 
on something like ppc or mips... that will be very painful

Jeff, your thoughts on that?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists