linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] atmel-mci: Unified Atmel MCI drivers (AVR32 & AT91)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4A4102C5.4060509@atmel.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:28:53 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>,
	Rob Emanuele <rob@...nuele.us>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] atmel-mci: Unified Atmel MCI drivers (AVR32 & AT91)

Haavard Skinnemoen :
> Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> -#define ATMCI_DATA_ERROR_FLAGS	(MCI_DCRCE | MCI_DTOE | MCI_OVRE | MCI_UNRE)
>>> +#define ATMCI_DATA_ERROR_FLAGS	(MCI_RINDE | MCI_RDIRE | MCI_RCRCE  \
>>> +				 | MCI_RENDE | MCI_RTOE | MCI_DCRCE \
>>> +				 | MCI_DTOE | MCI_OVRE | MCI_UNRE)  
>> Haavard, is it ok to add those flags on an AVR32 platform for now ?
> 
> It probably doesn't hurt on AVR32. But I'm not a great fan since it
> seems like the wrong thing to do, and it may simply mask the real
> problem.

Agreed.

To move forward, I will submit a first patch series without those flags
added.

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
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/