linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/05] resource: add resource_type() and IORESOURCE_TYPE

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, 18 Jul 2008 18:05:35 +0900
From:	"Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@...il.com>
To:	"Ben Dooks" <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...e.de, lethal@...ux-sh.org, i2c@...sensors.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/05] resource: add resource_type() and IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 05:24:59PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> wrote:
>> > You are changing a simple test to a mask and compare, is anyone going
>> > to produce resources with an IORESOURCE_MEM and an IORESOURCE_IO
>> > together?
>>
>> Actually, I'd like to replace the one-bit-per-type strategy with a
>> N-bit counter. But that is not very compatible with the case you are
>> pointing out. I'm not sure if that's a combination we really want to
>> support though. Both IRQ and DMA doesn't make much sense to me. =)
>
> I'm not saying it is a bad idea, I just do not know if anyone is
> currently relying on this to work...

In V1 I posted both a mega patch that went through and converted arch/
and also a patch that converted the type into a N-bit counter. In V2
I've taken more of a step-by-step approach and not converted into a
N-bit counter.

I'm thinking that this patch shouldn't break anything since the bits
are left exactly like before. And the code in drivers/base/platform.c
seems to treat the bits as only one should be set anyway. For instance
platform_device_add() seems to prioritize IORESOURCE_MEM over
IORESOURCE_IO.

Or did I change the logic in drivers/base/platform without realizing it?

Cheers,

/ magnus
--
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/