linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

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: <201103262151.47061.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:51:46 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

On Saturday 26 March 2011 18:55:39 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> i would add an ABI field here too so if in the future we want to add
> >> stuff, we can do so without adding new ioctls.  like "u16 version; u16
> >> flags;".  then in the ioctl, if version isnt 0, we return ENOTSUP.  in
> >> the future, we can add flags or bump the version.
> >
> > No, versioned APIs are just a pain to maintain, it's easier to add
> > new ioctl commands when necessary.
> > Note that the kernel would always have to support all versions of
> > the API anyway.
> 
> adding at least a flags field then should be fine

Fine with me, if you can name at least one possible use for a flag.

I think it would be better without a flags field, but it's not a
problem if you insist on having it.

	Arnd
--
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/