netdev - Re: [RFC v2 00/10] HFI Virtual Network Interface Controller (VNIC)

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:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:51:04 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Vishwanathapura, Niranjana" <niranjana.vishwanathapura@...el.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dennis.dalessandro@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/10] HFI Virtual Network Interface Controller (VNIC)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 9:52 AM, ira.weiny wrote:
>
> 2) With more than 60% of the code being MAD related, and another
> significant chunk being hfi related, and only a minor bit (20% maybe?)
> being net related,

Hi Doug and Ira,

I may admit that I didn't read the code very deep, but from brief
overview, I didn't find support for the claim the "60% code is MAD related".
It looks like the opposite thing will be more accurate.

Can you help me to understand this claim? How did you come to this
conclusion?

Thanks

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)