netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/3 net-next] e1000: Allocate pm_qos

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: <1428656287.2729.83.camel@jtkirshe-mobl>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 01:58:07 -0700
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/3 net-next] e1000: Allocate
 pm_qos_req as needed

On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 09:48 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 04/10/15 at 10:01am, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 04/10/2015 06:35 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 17:08 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > >>On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 01:43 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > >>>e1000 is the only driver requiring pm_qos_req, instead of causing
> > >>>every device to waste up to 240 bytes. Allocate it for the specific
> > >>>driver.
> > >>>
> > >>>Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
> > >>>---
> > >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++----
> > >>>  include/linux/netdevice.h                  |  2 +-
> > >>>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >>Small nitpick, it is e1000e not e1000 that you are modifying.
> > >
> > >So other than the patch title and description referencing e1000 instead
> > >of e1000e, patch looks fine.
> > >
> > >Acked-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> > 
> > Thanks for working towards reducing struct net_device, that's awesome!
> > 
> > Wrt this patch, I'm wondering if that couldn't be pushed down into
> > struct e1000_adapter entirely?
> 
> Sure, since I need to respin this anyway. Jeff are you OK with that?

I am trying to think why we did not do it earlier, but I am not coming
up with anything at the moment.  So, go ahead.

In the meantime, I will talk with Bruce Allan tomorrow to see if he
remembers why we did not do it.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)