linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/3] DMAENGINE: generic slave channel control v2

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]

Message-ID: <438BB0150E931F4B9CE701519A44630104A39147D5@bgsmsx502.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:55:15 +0530
From:	"Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] DMAENGINE: generic slave channel control v2

> > + * @private_config: if you need to pass in specialized configuration
> > + * at runtime, apart from the generic things supported in this
> > + * struct, you provide it in this pointer and dereference it inside
> > + * your dmaengine driver to get the proper configuration bits out.
> > + *
> 
> Will there be any users of this field initially, I'd just as soon
> leave it out?  Like I mentioned to Vinod I think requiring
> dma_slave_config to be wrapped is a better way to extend this
> structure.
> 
I was thinking of moving some of structure fields into this, but yes wrapping 
this into device specific will be a better way

-Vinod
--
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/