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, 5 Jun 2007 12:56:27 -0500
From:	Milton Miller <>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <>, Jeff Garzik <>,, David Acker <>,,
	Jesse Brandeburg <>,
	Jeff Kirsher <>,
	Scott Feldman <>,
	John Ronciak <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix e100 rx path on ARM (was [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits)

On Jun 5, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Kok, Auke wrote:

> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, that's my point. If Milton and David agree I think we should do 
> so immediately.

We definitely need something other than what is in now.

> If so, do you want me to write a revert-patch or do you have some 
> magic to do that for me?

The simple git revert won't work because there have been other changes 
(ioread for instance) that conflict.


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