netdev - RE: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/10] qed: Add module with basic common support

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]

Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:18:18 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/10] qed: Add module with basic common
 support

> > +config QED
> > +     tristate "QLogic QED 25/40/100Gb core driver"
> > +     depends on PCI && X86_64
> > +     ---help---
> > +       This enables the support for ...

> You should be maximizing the number of platforms that can at least
> build test this driver, rather than restricting things so much.

> If you are making this restriction because there are x86_64'isms
> in this driver, that's even worse.

> So I want to see this depending upon "PCI" only.

So far we've worked on stabalizing it on 64-bit LE endian.
I can easily understand why we'd want to relax this restriction later on
[and sooner rather than later], but what would you gain be gained by
compile-fixing for platforms on which it was never tested?--
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