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: <1317966346.1573.2252.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date:	Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:15:46 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	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 Wed, 2011-10-05 at 11:14 -0700, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> This new operation type strikes me as being in a similar vein to
> commit a08abd8c "async_tx: structify submission arguments, add
> scribble", in that we convert multiple submission arguments into one
> description template.  With some tweaks it could probably even cover
> the DMA_CYCLIC, but probably could not cover the raid ops.  In general
> I'm concerned about operation type proliferation, so if we added this
> one I'd like to see others removed. 
For slave cases, we have DMA_SLAVE, DMA_CYCLIC and some support memcpy
as well.

I think we should have kept DMA_CYCLIC as a special case of DMA_SLAVE
(thru a flag perhaps) not a new API, if all agree i can fix that up for
3.3

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.

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.

maybe I am being pessimist, but my vote goes for simpler things

Thoughts...?

For other memcpy cases like xor, etc, I don't think I have looked at
finer detail to comment on it, but if we can make a generic mempy API
with ops specified for what "type" of memcpy we could reduce it :)

-- 
~Vinod

--
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/