linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] libata: pass host flags into __ata_pci_sff_init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:00:53 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libata: pass host flags into __ata_pci_sff_init_one()
 helper

On 02/18/2010 04:44 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:59:22 +0100
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@...il.com>  wrote:
>
>> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@...il.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] libata: pass host flags into __ata_pci_sff_init_one() helper
>>
>> This was orginally proposed by Alan Cox but as a change
>> for ata_pci_sff_init_one() helper function instead of
>> __ata_pci_sff_init_one() one which casues needless churn
>> to all host drivers and accidentally breakes few host
>> drivers which are still on their way upstream.
>>
>> Allows parallel scan and the like to be set without
>> having to stop using the existing full helper functions.
>
> NAK - __ is for internal symbol names.
>
> I was split 50/50 on adding ata_pci_sff_init_one_flags() or similar but
> the churn, given its a one off and we can then add all sorts of other
> future flags without pain, seemed worth it.
>
> I'm ambivalent about whether its best to go with a new function name as
> you have or take the hit now (which seems sensible to me). Either way the
> __ naming is wrong for an external interface.

Your proposed patch from yesterday adding flags to each is fine. 
All-driver patches are just fine, as long as the need is demonstrated 
[and it is, in this case].


> Anyway I'd *hope* we can get>  50% of interfaces parallel scanning at
> which point it ceases to be more noise anyway !
>
> Jeff ?

Most hardware should support parallel scanning, sans caveats like 
chipsets that snoop SET FEATURES - XFER MODE (that command, and only 
that command, needs synchronization)

	Jeff



--
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/