linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 5/5] usb: Add support for streams alloc/dealloc to devio.c

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:	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:58:21 +0200
From:	Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@....net>
To:	"Amit Blay" <ablay@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Sarah Sharp" <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Tatyana Brokhman" <tlinder@...eaurora.org>, greg@...ah.com,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	balbi@...com, "Amit Blay" <ablay@...lcomm.com>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 5/5] usb: Add support for streams alloc/dealloc to devio.c

On Sunday 21 August 2011 12:18:34 Amit Blay wrote:
> Thanks Sarah, Hans for your comments,
> 
> On Thu, August 18, 2011 3:47 pm, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > Yes, I think this is the correct solution.  Sorry for taking so long to
> > get back to you.
> 
> OK, so I will go ahead with implementing this solution.
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> I would suggest overloading the "unsigned int pipe", instead of breaking
> >> existing API's by adding a new stream ID value. Also for LibUSB.
> 
> The purposed solution will not break any existing API, by doing the
> following:
> a. Adding a new API for streams alloc/dealloc
> b. Adding a new API for submitting a URB which is stream capable (I will
> implement this in a separate patch).
> 
> > I don't see this as a strong argument why we should arbitrarily limit a
> > new API.  It's very hard to deprecate kernel to userspace API, so I
> > think we should do it right the first time.  There are current
> > applications (like an SSD behind a UAS device) that need as many
> > concurrent streams in flight as possible, so I don't buy the argument
> > that there aren't current applications that need that many streams.
> 
> I agree with Sarah.
> Hans, I appreciate your inputs. Please let me know if you see a good
> reason why not implementing the new APIs purposed above for streams
> allocation and usage. Otherwise I will go ahead with the implementation.

Hi Amit,

I think your suggestion is OK.

--HPS
--
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/