netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:40:43 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>, <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>,
	<andrew.bennieston@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with
 SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy

On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 18:57 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:50 +0000
> 
> > Maybe you mixed up mine with that? But that's also not eligible to be
> > applied yet.
> 
> I can always revert the series if there are major objections.

Zoltan -- does this patch series suffer from/expose the confusion
regarding RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS which we are discussing
separately on xen-devel? If the answer is yes then I think this series
should be reverted for the time being because there seems to be some
fairly fundamental questions about the semantics of that macro.

If the answer is no then I will endeavour to review this version of the
series ASAP (hopefully tomorrow) and determine if I have any other major
objections which would warrant a revert.

Ian.

--
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