netdev - Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits)

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: <20070605173904.GP31565@havoc.gtf.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:39:04 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Cc:	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	David Acker <dacker@...net.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits)

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:27:19AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> 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

I certainly agree with this assessment...

I've been wondering if, based on all this recent work, we should revert
the s-bit stuff and wait for 2.6.23.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html