netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC v4 net-next] ravb: Add dma queue interrupt 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]

Message-ID: <20160127014944.GD27499@verge.net.au>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:49:44 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v4 net-next] ravb: Add dma queue interrupt support

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:00:34PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
>    Yoshihiro-san, there was no need to hurry -- net-next is still closed and
> by posting this patch to netdev you're only making DaveM upset...

True.

> On 01/26/2016 03:23 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> 
> >> From: Kazuya Mizuguchi <kazuya.mizuguchi.ks@...esas.com>
> >>
> >>This patch supports the following interrupts.
> >>
> >>- One interrupt for multiple (descriptor, error, management)
> >>- One interrupt for emac
> >>- Four interrupts for dma queue (best effort rx/tx, network control rx/tx)
> >>
> >>This patch improve efficiency of the interrupt handler by adding the
> >>interrupt handler corresponding to each interrupt source described
> >>above. Additionally, it reduces the number of times of the access to
> >>EthernetAVB IF.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Kazuya Mizuguchi <kazuya.mizuguchi.ks@...esas.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@...il.com>
> >
> >I have tested this patch and the result seems positive.
> 
>    Tested on gen3 only I guess?

Yes, that is correct.

> >Please let me know if any more/different testing would help.
> 
>    Sanity testing on some gen2 SoC wouldn't hurt (if you have time).

I don't believe that I have access to a gen2 board (+ extra hardware ?)
where ravb works. If you do would it be possible for you to do a sanity
test?