netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 13/15] eth: fbnic: add basic Rx handling

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: <0d157a2a-ad6b-4360-8493-6a4530bf089c@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:26:13 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 13/15] eth: fbnic: add basic Rx handling

> Sorry that is a bit of my frustration with Yunsheng coming through. He
> has another patch set that mostly just moves my code and made himself
> the maintainer. Admittedly I am a bit annoyed with that. Especially
> since the main drive seems to be to force everything to use that one
> approach and then optimize for his use case for vhost net over all
> others most likely at the expense of everything else.

That is why we ask for benchmarks for "optimization patches". If they
don't actually provide any improvements, or degrade other use cases,
they get rejected.

> That is why I am more than willing to make this an x86_64 only driver
> for now and we can look at expanding out as I get time and get
> equipment to to add support and test for other architectures.

That sounds reasonable to me. But i would allow COMPILE_TEST for other
architectures, just to keep the number of surprises low when you do
have other architectures to test with.

     Andrew