linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:32:20 +0800
From:	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>
To:	Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:04 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 04:00:28PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 15:30 +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> > >>> From: Cliff Cai <cliff.cai@...log.com>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Introduce POWEROF2_BLOCKSIZE_ONLY option for those SD/SDIO host
>> > >>> which only support transferring block with size of power-of-2
>> > >>
>> > >> Is the point here to avoid copying in the controller code?  As with the
>> > >> other patches on libertas-dev, I really dislike adding code to *every
>> > >> SDIO driver* just because the host has certain restrictions.  I'd much
>> > >> rather that the host/controller code became aware of it's own
>> > >> restrictions, and exposed those generically to drivers above it.
>> > >> Without a KConfig option.
>> > >>
>> > >> Seriously.  The host knows what it needs.  The code to handle that
>> > >> should go in the host.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > I agree here.
>> > >
>> > >> How about adding a method like "sdio_align_size" that takes the
>> > >> controller's constraints into account?  That seems a lot cleaner than
>> > >> adding #define/KConfig junk to every SDIO driver in the kernel.  One
>> > >> less codepath to test, makes your life and all our lives easier.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > So we plan to add method ".sdio_align_size" to SDIO stack.
>> > > And Blackfin host driver will implement this method while others will
>> > > implement this as a dummy function.
>> > >
>> >
>> > sdio_align_size is already in SDIO stack, so we just need to add our
>> > constraints to this function.
>>
>> I'm reading this as "this patch is unnecessary or will be replaced
>> by something better", so I'm dropping it.  If I misread that, feel
>> free to repost...thanks!
>
> Yeah, some patches got posted to the MMC lists that do what this patch
> would do, but do it in a somewhat better manner.
>

Exactly, Cliff will redesign a new patches for MMC/SD stack to fix this.

Thanks
-Bryan
--
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/