netdev - Re: [for-next 07/10] IB/mlx5: Use blue flame register allocator in mlx5

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: <20170106.111131.1775665484264248231.davem@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:11:31 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...hat.com>
To:     leonro@...lanox.com
Cc:     eli@....mellanox.co.il, saeedm@...lanox.com, dledford@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        eli@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [for-next 07/10] IB/mlx5: Use blue flame register allocator in
 mlx5_ib

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:06:09 +0200

> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:07:31PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eli Cohen <eli@....mellanox.co.il>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 14:03:18 -0600
>>
>> > If necessary I can make sure it builds on 32 bits as well.
>>
>> Please do.
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I'm failing to understand the benefits of building mlx5 on 32 bits, and
> see only disadvantages:
>  * It is actual dead code without test coverage.
>  * It misleads reviewers/customers by seeing code for 32 bits.
>  * It adds compilation time for 32 bits platforms and "punishes" them
>    for not relevant for them driver.
> 
> Why do you call removing all that as a "regression"?

We have this thing called "CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST", it has tons of value,
perhaps you've seen it before?