linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9][RFC] stackable 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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:41:28 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9][RFC] stackable dma_ops for x86

Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Its implemented using the per-device dma-ops already there. With this
> patches there is a list of available dma_ops implementations which are
> asked in a particular order if they can handle the device. The first
> implementation which returns true is assigned to the device as the
> per-device dma_ops structure.
>
> (Hmm, maybe the name stackable is misleading, is "dma_ops multiplexing"
>  better?)

Is per-device the right level?  Wouldn't per-bus make more sense?  How
does a dma_ops implementation "know" whether it can handle a particular
device?

(I haven't had a chance to read the patches yet.)

    J
--
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/