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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:07:21 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/4] Introduce dynamic UAR allocation mode On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:39:03AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 04:24:55PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > I'm ok with this approach because it helps us to find those dead > > > > paths, but have last question, shouldn't this be achieved with > > > > proper documentation of every flag instead of adding CONFIG_..? > > > > > > How do you mean? > > > > > > The other half of this idea is to disable obsolete un tested code to > > > avoid potential bugs. Which requires CONFIG_? > > > > The second part is achievable by distros when they will decide to > > support starting from version X. The same decision is not so easy > > to do in the upstream. > > Upstream will probably carry the code for a long, long time, that > doesn't mean the distros don't get value by using a shorter time > window Sure > > > Let's take as an example this feature. It will be set as default from > > rdma-core v29 and the legacy code will be guarded by > > "if (CONFIG_INFINIBAND_MIN_RDMA_CORE_VERSION >= 29)". When will change > > CONFIG_INFINIBAND_MIN_RDMA_CORE_VERSION to be above 29? So we will > > delete such legacy code. > > First the distros will decide in their own kconfigs where they want to > set the value. > > Then the upstream kernel will decide some default value > > Then maybe we could talk about lowest values when enough of the user > community uses a higher value I think that you over-optimistic here, but let's hear other voices here. Thanks > > Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists