netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 28/28] sfc: support pio mapping based on cxl

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: <0f2c6c09-f3cd-4a27-4d07-6f9b5c805724@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 02:39:03 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: alejandro.lucero-palau@....com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, martin.habets@...inx.com,
 edward.cree@....com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dave.jiang@...el.com
Cc: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 28/28] sfc: support pio mapping based on cxl

On 09/12/2024 18:54, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
> From: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>
> 
> With a device supporting CXL and successfully initialised, use the cxl
> region to map the memory range and use this mapping for PIO buffers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@....com>

Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>

> @@ -1263,8 +1281,25 @@ static int efx_ef10_dimension_resources(struct efx_nic *efx)
>  	iounmap(efx->membase);
>  	efx->membase = membase;
>  
> -	/* Set up the WC mapping if needed */
> -	if (wc_mem_map_size) {
> +	if (!wc_mem_map_size)
> +		goto out;

Maybe this label ought to be called something else; it's not really an
 'early exit', it's a 'skip over mapping and linking PIO', which just
 _happens_ to be almost the last thing in the function.

> @@ -24,9 +24,10 @@ int efx_cxl_init(struct efx_probe_data *probe_data)
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(expected, CXL_MAX_CAPS);
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(found, CXL_MAX_CAPS);
>  	struct pci_dev *pci_dev;
> +	resource_size_t max;
>  	struct efx_cxl *cxl;
>  	struct resource res;
> -	resource_size_t max;

Why does 'max' have to move?  Weird churn.