linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dma: shdma: transfer based runtime PM

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:	Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:23:10 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: shdma: transfer based runtime PM

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Vinod Koul wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 18:36 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 10:10 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Hi Vinod
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Please dont top post...
> > > > Sorry, I see it differently. I don't use any counters in my patch. I'm 
> > > > only checking for empty queue, i.e., I'm just identifying the first 
> > > > descriptor submission and the last completion or termination.
> > > > 
> > > > > You juts need
> > > > > to call _put/_get at right places, which IMO l;ooks lot simpler than
> > > > > current approach
> > > > 
> > > > If we didn't have to check for exact symmetry, then yes, I agree, this 
> > > > would be cleaner. I.e., if we indeed had well-defined entry- and 
> > > > exit-points, which are guaranteed to be called exact same number of times. 
> > > > Like, e.g., with file open() / close() etc. But since we don't have this 
> > > > symmetry, and instead have to add flags and iterate lists, this doesn't 
> > > > look natural and simple to me anymore, sorry.
> > > 
> > > What about this one? Would you be prepared to take it as is, or you still 
> > > think, that a pm_runtime_get*() on each descriptor submission would be 
> > > better?
> > I think I will go with your current approach. Let me review again and
> > check it. If I get time it should be in my tree by tonight
> This patch fails to apply for me, can you please rebase it to me tree
> and resend, I will apply it later this week

Sure, will do.

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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/