linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/12] ahci: Add support for non-PCI devices

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:	Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:40:30 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	avorontsov@...mvista.com
CC:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/12] ahci: Add support for non-PCI devices

On 03/03/2010 08:15 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:34:39PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> [...]
>> As demonstrated in libata-dev.git#libahci, I think the best route is
>> to move generic code into libahci.  In #libahci you will see
>>
>> 	libahci ->  common code
>> 	ahci ->  standard PCI driver, req's libahci
>> 	mv-ahci ->  Marvell AHCI driver, req's libahci
>> 	acard-ahci ->  ACard AHCI driver, req's libahci
>>
>> and to this we could easily add
>>
>> 	platform-ahci ->  platform AHCI driver, req's libahci
>>
>> WARNING:  #libahci should not be used directly, it is meant for
>> illustration purposes only.  It has not been properly updated for
>> several recent ahci.c changes upstream, which implies that the
>> trivial-and-obvious task of moving generic code from ahci.c to
>> libahci.c must be redone.
>
> Well, do I understand correctly that the only issue is the
> file names? I.e. in my patches, instead of keeping the library
> code in ahci.c, I should move the library code into libahci.c,
> and keep the PCI code in ahci.c?
>
> Because, as far as I can see, the result of my patches is pretty
> much the same as in #libahci, except the file names and more
> things that can be reused (i.e. ahci_sht, ahci_ops -- I kept
> all this in the library part, since we want to share it with
> the platform driver).
>
> Also, I don't export function that aren't currently used
> by PCI or platform drivers, but in #libahci there are all
> exported. Should I keep it my way, or should I export all the
> functions (even if there are no any users of these)?

Well, the general idea is to have a kernel module libahci.ko, upon which 
ahci.ko, mv-ahci.ko, acard-ahci.ko and platform-ahci.ko depends.  That 
would imply a bunch of exports, when the library code is moved from 
ahci.c to libahci.c, because libahci should be a separate kernel module.

I'm not overly picky about file naming.  However, in existing 
installations, people, scripts, knowledgebase articles and configuration 
files expect "ahci" to be the driver for PCI AHCI devices.  We don't 
want to break that if we can avoid it.  Simply using a different name 
avoids any breakage related to name changes.

	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/