linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver

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]

Message-ID: <20101020095303.GA21242@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:53:03 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
	Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, mattw@...eaurora.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:31:30PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:44 +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > OMAP4 introduces a Spinlock hardware module, which provides hardware
> > assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
> > processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
> > (e.g. OMAP4 has dual Cortex-A9, dual Cortex-M3 and a C64x+ DSP).
> > 
> > The intention of this hardware module is to allow remote processors,
> > that have no alternative mechanism to accomplish synchronization and mutual
> > exclusion operations, to share resources (such as memory and/or any other
> > hardware resource).
> > 
> > This patchset adds a new misc driver for this OMAP hwspinlock module.
> 
> Does this code interface with some hardware unit (other than the other
> processors) to accomplish this locking ?
> 
> The reason I ask is because MSM has similar code, and from what I can
> tell the MSM version has some structures in memory but that's all. It
> just operates on the structures in memory.
> 
> It might be worth looking over the two implementation so we aren't both
> remaking the wheel.

Ohad's message to which you replied had:

To: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>,
        Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>

Yours has:

To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc: Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, mattw@...eaurora.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
        mattw@...eaurora.orgmattw, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org

which includes an invalid address "mattw@...eaurora.orgmattw".  Is there
a reason why you're excluding the linux-omap list from your message and
subsequent discussion?
--
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/