linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add dev_sysdata and use it for ACPI

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:	Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:48:46 +0900
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add dev_sysdata and use it for ACPI

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 09:35:37AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 17:04 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:45:21 +1100,
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >  - Add a dev_sysdata structure to struct device whose content is arch
> > > specific. It will allow architectures like powerpc, arm, i386, ... who
> > > need different types of DMA ops for busses and other kind of auxilliary
> > > data for devices in general (numa node id, firmware data, etc...) to put
> > > them in there, without bloating all architectures. The patch adds an
> > > empty definition for the structure to all architectures.
> > 
> > I like this. If we could move the dma stuff in there, we could get rid
> > of it on s390 where it is just bloat we drag around...
> > 
> > (Maybe dev_archdata would be a better name, since the definition is
> > architecture specific?)
> 
> Hrm... I wonder why I posted from my IBM address :-) I have no firm
> preference on the name of the structure. So far, I had no feedback on
> that patch at all appart from yours though.
> 
> Andrew, Greg ? Is that something you would take for 2.6.20 ? I need to
> know wether I should rework my patches to use that or stick to my hacks
> involving hijacking firmware_data.

Sorry, I'm in Japan this week, and access to email is limited.

I like this change, but I like the dev_archdata name better.  It lets
people know who owns the pointer much better.

Care to respin these patches with this change?

And yes, I don't see a problem with such a change like this for 2.6.20,
it's pretty simple.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/