linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved 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_ZhdFA641AzmEmYaz++iRNYQmrHDFmAWOkrwmR_h2ie176g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:57:03 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	DL-SHA-WorkGroupLinux <workgroup.linux@....com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

On 7 October 2011 11:15, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:

> Thru this patch Jassi gave a very good try at merging DMA_SLAVE and
> memcpy, but more we debate this, I am still not convinced about merging
> memcpy and DMA_SLAVE yet.
>
Nobody is merging memcpy and DMA_SLAVE right away.
The api's primary purpose is to support interleave transfers.
Possibility to merge other prepares into this is a side-effect.

> I would still argue that if we split this on same lines as current
> mechanism, we have clean way to convey all details for both cases.
>
Do you mean to have separate interleaved transfer apis for Slave
and Mem->Mem ? Please clarify.
--
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/