linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/20] dma

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: <47EA1EF9.9080602@qumranet.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:01:29 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	glommer@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, amit.shah@...ranet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/20] dma_ops for i386

Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here there is a series of 20 patches that lays the foundations for
> using dma_ops in i386 in the very same way x86_64, as well as many other
> architectures already do.
>
> The functions themselves for i386 are placed in a pci-base_32.c, but just
> a few among them are actually implemented. Most were no-ops anyway.
>
>   

I see the headers are unified, but the .c files are duplicated.  I 
presume unifying the implementation is deferred to later patches?


> The motivation for that is the ongoing work for pci-passthrough in KVM.
> So ingo, avi, what do you think it's the best way to handle these patches through?
>   

x86.git.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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/