linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] DMAEngine: Define generic transfer request api

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: <CAJe_ZhfSsE40ucx5=f7bBJ5WXeWib=OdGRyFTA-3Di6i608EOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:16:05 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>
Cc:	"Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>, sundaram@...com,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk,
	nsekhar@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMAEngine: Define generic transfer request api

On 19 August 2011 19:49, Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/19 Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@...el.com>:
>> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:06 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think Sundaram is in the position of doing some heavy work on
>>> using one or the other of the API:s, and I think he is better
>>> suited than anyone else of us to select what scheme to use,
>>> in the end he's going to write the first code using the API.
>
>> And Unfortunately TI folks don't seem to care about this discussion :(
>> Haven't seen anything on this from them, or on previous RFC by Jassi
>
> Well if there is no code usig the API then there is no rush
> in merging it either I guess. Whenever someone (TI or
> Samsung) cook some driver patches they can choose their
> approach.
>
No, it's not a matter of "choice".
If that were the case, Sundaram already proposed a TI specific
flag. Why wait for him to tell his choice again?

You might, but I can't molest my sensibility to believe that a Vendor
specific flag could be better than a generic solution.
Not here at least, where the overhead due to generality is not much.
(though I can trim some 'futuristic' members from the 'struct xfer_template')

Maintainers might wait as long as they want, but there should never
be an option to have vendor specific hacks.
--
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/