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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:26:55 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com> To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] ide: add ->read_sff_dma_status method Hello. Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>>>> static void ide_tf_load(ide_drive_t *drive, ide_task_t *task) >>>>> { >>>>> ide_hwif_t *hwif = drive->hwif; >>>>> @@ -323,6 +331,8 @@ static void ata_output_data(ide_drive_t >>>>> >>>>> void default_hwif_transport(ide_hwif_t *hwif) >>>>> { >>>>> + hwif->read_sff_dma_status = ide_read_sff_dma_status; >>>>> + >>>>> hwif->tf_load = ide_tf_load; >>>>> hwif->tf_read = ide_tf_read; >>>>> >>>> I also didn't understand the motivation behind putting this method >>>> together with the transport operations... IMO, DMA programming interface >>>> hardly has anything to do with transporting the data over IDE bus. >>>> >>> The motivation was that hwif->dma_ops is not available yet when >>> ->read_sff_dma_status is used in ide_pci_check_simplex(). >>> >>> However I agree that it should somehow find its way into ->dma_ops >>> (as usual patches are stongly preffered :). >>> >> Unless I'm missing something changing the place where hwif->dma_ops is >> initialized to sff_dma_ops (along the lines it was changed for hwif->dma_base) >> seems pretty trivial, so I wonder why you didn't do it in the same patch... >> Ah, I forgot for a moment that there were two patches and it would have make no sense to do that in the patch that factored out ide_pci_check_simplex()... And then tre was a patch introducing 'struct ide_tp_ops' which incorporated the read_sff_dma_status() method. > Indeed, it should be trivial now, one just needs to be careful to: > > * move 'if (d->dma_ops) ...' from ide_init_port() into > ->init_dma/ide_hwif_setup_dma() > > * unset ->dma_ops on ->init_dma/ide_hwif_setup_dma() failures > Sure. > I guess I overlooked it ATM of making the patch (or the code evolved > greatly in the meantime)... > I think I understand now: it's sticking read_sff_dma_status() method into 'struct ide_tp_ops' that was a wrong move that's worth undoing (by putting it where it really belongs). > [ It is really time consuming and difficult to recall the every small > detail of every patch after few months (the patch was posted 10 weeks > Heh, as if it wasn't time consuming to untange that after a few months (when I'm suposed to spend time elsewhere :-)... > ago and merged 6 weeks ago)... The most efficient way of handling > such issues upon discovery is with sending patches... ] > Sigh, I'll see what I can do in my currently very limieted time... > Thanks, > Bart > MBR, Sergei -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists