linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] QEMU fw_cfg DMA interface documentation

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:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:29:39 +0100
From:	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
To:	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
Cc:	Marc Marí <markmb@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Drew <drjones@...hat.com>, "Kevin O'Connor" <kevin@...onnor.net>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] QEMU fw_cfg DMA interface documentation

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/06/15 14:12, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Marc Marí <markmb@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> Add fw_cfg DMA interface specfication in the fw_cfg documentation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Marí <markmb@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fw-cfg.txt | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fw-cfg.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fw-cfg.txt
>>> index 953fb64..c880eec 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fw-cfg.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fw-cfg.txt
>>> @@ -49,6 +49,41 @@ The guest kernel is not expected to use these registers (although it is
>>
>> Please update the "=== Revision (Key 0x0001, FW_CFG_ID) ===" section
>> to say that currently the revision is 2.
>
> Sorry I haven't started reading the series yet, but this caught my eye
> -- can we agree that this field should be a bitmap instead, and not a
> counter-like value? I don't insist of course, because for the current
> use case both approaches will work. But, for "future proofing", I think
> it is useful to express features independently of each other. (See eg.
> virtio feature flags.)

Good idea.

Stefan
--
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/