netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 11/19] net: mvpp2: add spinlock for FW FCA configuration path

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: <CO6PR18MB38734006ECF7D37CC53BBC31B0BB9@CO6PR18MB3873.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:27:07 +0000
From:   Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
CC:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Nadav Haklai" <nadavh@...vell.com>,
        Yan Markman <ymarkman@...vell.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "mw@...ihalf.com" <mw@...ihalf.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 11/19] net: mvpp2: add spinlock for
 FW FCA configuration path

> > index 9d8993f..f34e260 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
> > @@ -1021,6 +1021,11 @@ struct mvpp2 {
> >
> >         /* CM3 SRAM pool */
> >         struct gen_pool *sram_pool;
> > +
> > +       bool custom_dma_mask;
> > +
> > +       /* Spinlocks for CM3 shared memory configuration */
> > +       spinlock_t mss_spinlock;
> 
> Does this need to be a stand-alone patch? This introduces a spinlock, but
> does not use it.
> 
> Also, is the introduction of custom_dma_mask in this commit on purpose?

I would add this change to another patch. custom_dma_mask should be removed.

Thanks,
Stefan.