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]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:50:29 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
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

Hello.

On 01/27/2016 04:49 AM, Simon Horman wrote:

>>>> From: Kazuya Mizuguchi <kazuya.mizuguchi.ks@...esas.com>

    Kaneko-san, with the amount of the review changes, it might make sense for 
you to assume the authorship of this patch, only noting it's based on 
Mizuguchi-san's work. In principle, when you change the original patch, you 
should document the changes you made in the change log, above ---...

>>>> 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.

    Sorry, I just forgot about that.

> If you do would it be possible for you to do a sanity test?

    Yes, of course.

MBR, Sergei