linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

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, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:03 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	DL-SHA-WorkGroupLinux <workgroup.linux@....com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

On 7 October 2011 19:49, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:57 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:

>> > I would still argue that if we split this on same lines as current
>> > mechanism, we have clean way to convey all details for both cases.
>> >
>> Do you mean to have separate interleaved transfer apis for Slave
>> and Mem->Mem ? Please clarify.
> If we can make API cleaner and well defined that way then Yes :)
>
I assume if you suggest you already have an idea....
Please do tell roughly how the api should look for Slave and for Mem->Mem ?
--
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/