linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] libata:

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]

Message-Id: <20060929100457.eaf0425e.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:04:57 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@...el.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, linux-ide@...r.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] libata: _GTF support

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:54:09 -0700 Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:07:07 +0100
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:29:01AM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> > 
> > I mentioned this to Randy a while back, but I can't remember what sort 
> > of resolution we came to. In any case:
> > 
> > > + * sata_get_dev_handle - finds acpi_handle and PCI device.function
> > 
> > I'm a bit uncomfortable that we seem to have two quite different ways of 
> > accomplishing much the same thing. On the PCI bus, we have a callback 
> > that gets triggered whenever a new PCI device is attached. At that 
> > point, we look for the associated ACPI object and put a pointer to that 
> > in the device structure. Then, whenever we want to make an ACPI call, we 
> > can simply refer to that.
> > 
> > This implementation seems to reimplement much of the same lookup code, 
> > but makes it libata specific. Wouldn't it be cleaner to implement it in 
> > a similar way to PCI? The only real downside is that you need to add a 
> > callback in the ata bus code. drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c/pci_acpi_init is 
> > the sort of thing required.
> > 
> > (Thinking ahead, would that make it easier to maintain links in sysfs 
> > between devices and acpi objects?)
> > 
> > -- 
> > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
> 
> This makes sense to me.  I'm happy to put together some patches for 
> commenting on if people think this is a good way to go.  It would be
> much cleaner in my opinion and we could get rid of a good chunk of code.

My belated memory of it is that I tried Matthew's suggestion
and it didn't work, but I have confidence in Kristen.  Go for it.

---
~Randy
-
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/