netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

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:	Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:56:38 +0300
From:	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	"Somnath Kotur" <Somnath.Kotur@...gotech.com>,
	Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
	"talal@...lanox.com" <talal@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core



On 8/2/2015 12:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
> <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>
>>> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
>>> to send developers again and again to fix things which were
>>> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
>>> some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the
>>
>> I don't even know what you are talking about Or.
>>
>> v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly
>> serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge
>> v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious.
>
> Jason, can you be more specific? I don't see any comments from you
> expect for the cover-letter, so if something broke out, sure, a fix is
> needed, but what is that?
>
>> That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess,
>> last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that?
>
> I remember you have provided review comment which pointed that the
> time-stamping series stepped on something which was there before needs
> some cleanup, not a real mess to my taste. Matan, do have the plan to
> do that work?

Indeed this design flaw was introduced when the first legacy verb was
extended. I think that falling back from extended code to legacy code
should be in the uverbs code. ib_uverbs_write will return -ENOSYS only
if both extended and non-extended don't exist. The uverbs command itself 
will call the non-extended form if the comp_mask is zero and all
data between legacy size and the given size are zero as well.
What do you think?

>
> Or.
>

Matan
--
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