| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090811153633.GC32658@braap.org> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:36:33 +0200 From: "Emilio G. Cota" <cota@...ap.org> To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...anuc.com> Cc: Greg K-H <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org, Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@...l.net> Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Staging: VME Framework for the Linux Kernel Martyn Welch wrote: > Not the same question, but I'd agree - that would probably break the > current model I have proposed. *However*, providing a resource > management layer as you have proposed above the basic resource > management my API provides would resolve that without added complexity > in the bridge drivers themselves. It wouldn't break it, the model simply couldn't give you more than 8 windows-->8 devices. I think it should be the bridge the one that manages its own resources, not someone else. I'm coding a layer that works this way, we'll see how it looks. > Yes. If I understand you correctly, your saying that management of the > devices in the VME address space is a system configuration issue. It obviously is. We cannot impose the users where they should plug their devices or which pins on the boards they should tweak. They build their crates --> they tell the kernel about them. -- 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