netdev - RE: [RFC v2 00/11] QLogic RDMA Driver (qedr) RFC

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:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:33:25 +0000
From:   "Elior, Ariel" <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Amrani, Ram" <Ram.Amrani@...ium.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
        "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>,
        "Borundia, Rajesh" <Rajesh.Borundia@...ium.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2 00/11] QLogic RDMA Driver (qedr) RFC

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:35:52PM +0300, Ram Amrani wrote:
...
> > The series adds on top of RFC v1:
> > * a check for all drivers that IB_ACCESS_MW_BIND isn't set for ib_get_dma_mr
> > * relocation of qedr user API to include/rdma/uapi/providers/
> > * removal of qedr_devlist_local
> > * fixed error handling in qedr_alloc_resources()
> > * configuration of PBL in ib_map_mr_sg() driver implementation,
> >   rather than post_send's IB_WR_REG_MR
> > * misc.: placed code in proper patch, fixed a few comments,
> >   removed extra parentheses
> >
> > Thanks for everyone which pointed out problems in the driver.
> >
> > Any review/comment is appreciated.
> 
> Very nice,
> Any reason why didn't you drop debug module parameter and decided to
> mimic already available kernel core functionality?
> 
> You got technical explanations why it is bad idea to use it. If you need additional
> voices
> to support my claims, you will find them in thread about VERBOSE flag and responses
> from
> Doug, and Dennis.
> 
> Thanks
Hi Leon,
The RFC cover letter lists what has been addressed. Debug printouts are not addressed in V2 as the discussion on that topic is not concluded (more thoughts from us on debug printouts incoming on the thread). There were many comments to V1 which are not relevant to debug printouts which are addressed by V2. We are requesting further comment, hence RFC V2. Rest assured, if it is the final opinion in the relevant discussion that pr_debug is the way to go, that's what we'll do.
Thanks,
Ariel