| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:15:10 -0800 From: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org> To: Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net> Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com, jarod@...sonet.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...hat.com, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, superm1@...ntu.com Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net> wrote: >> If decoding can *only* be sanely handled in user-space, that's one >> thing. If it can be handled in kernel, then that would be better. > > Why does the address space in which decoding is performed make the > decoding process better or worse? The in kernel infrastructre and > restrictions add constraints to a decoding implementation. Userspace is > much more flexible. In which case I look forward to seeing your patches to move drivers/hid/ to userspace. Please cc: me so I can enjoy the ensuing festival. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists