linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] aic94xx: Use request_firmware() to provide SAS address if the adapter lacks one

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:	Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:10 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	James.Smart@...lex.Com
CC:	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexis Bruemmer <alexisb@...ibm.com>,
	James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aic94xx: Use request_firmware() to provide SAS address
 if the adapter lacks one

James Smart wrote:
> So, what's the decision - are we only allowing this for physical adapters
> that don't have a name ? or are we allowing it to be more dynamic ?

At a minimum, I think(?) we all agree that current upstream aic94xx 
behavior is nice:  allow the admin to override the WWN manually, even if 
the adapter already has one.

As to the question of request_firmware() versus sysfs, it's IMO largely 
a question of taste -- do you like the "get property" on-demand pull 
model, or a push model that presumes the property must be set before it 
is needed?  And which solution requires the least amount of additional 
userspace machinery in order to be usable?

	Jeff

-
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/