linux-kernel - Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

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:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:45:36 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	muli@...ibm.com, jdmason@...zu.us, bzolnier@...il.com,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, discuss@...-64.org
Subject: Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:17:37AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why does the calgary driver need this?  Can we just use pci_get_device()
> > instead?  Why do you need to walk the device list backwards?  Do you get
> > false positives going forward?
> 
> It doesn't look to be performance critical so the driver can
> pci_get_device until the end and use the final hit anyway.

That would make more sense.

> IDE reverse is more problematic but nobody seems to use it.

I've seen two posters say they use it.  I'm wondering what it is really
solving if they use it, and why if it's really needed, scsi never had to
implement such a hack...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/