netdev - RE: [PATCH 14/23 v3] mlx4_core: Determine primary physical function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <E113D394D7C5DB4F8FF691FA7EE9DB44388066F0D2@MTLMAIL.mtl.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:26:33 +0200
From:	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.co.il>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
CC:	"general@...ts.openfabrics.org" <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.co.il>,
	Tziporet Koren <tziporet@...lanox.co.il>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/23 v3] mlx4_core: Determine primary physical function

 

>> +	MLX4_FLAG_PF		= 1 << 5,
>
> Am I mistaken, or is this the only place this flag appears anywhere in the patch set?  In other words it is never set and never tested -- so probably we > don't need it?

That is correct

>> +	dev_cap->pf_num = field;
>> +	if (dev_cap->pf_num > 1)
>> +		dev->flags |= MLX4_FLAG_MASTER;
>
> Is this correct?  All PFs > 1 are masters?  Or should the test be "== 1"
> rather than "> 1" instead?

No, It means that if some function get notified that there are more then 1 physical functions on the device, it should act as master.

Thanks,
Yevgeny--
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