linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 1/2] dma-buf: Introduce dma buffer sharing mechanism

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: <CAB2ybb9yiHLzB9iW_EhBvEkvo3n82phkfS+d1J7yXi+ZZt=kDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:32:08 +0530
From:	"Semwal, Sumit" <sumit.semwal@...com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, jesse.barker@...aro.org,
	m.szyprowski@...sung.com, rob@...com, daniel@...ll.ch,
	t.stanislaws@...sung.com, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/2] dma-buf: Introduce dma buffer sharing mechanism

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 December 2011, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you have a use case for making the interface compile-time disabled?
>> > I had assumed that any code using it would make no sense if it's not
>> > available so you don't actually need this.
>>
>> Ok. Though if we keep the interface compile-time disabled, the users
>> can actually check and fail or fall-back gracefully when the API is
>> not available; If I remove it, anyways the users would need to do the
>> same compile time check whether API is available or not, right?
>
> If you have to do a compile-time check for the config symbol, it's better
> to do it the way you did here than in the caller.
>
> My guess was that no caller would actually require this, because when you
> write a part of a subsystem to interact with the dma-buf infrastructure,
> you would always disable compilation of an extire file that deals with
> everything related to struct dma_buf, not just stub out the calls.

Right; that would be ideal, but we may not be able to ask each user to
do so - especially when the sharing part might be interspersed in
existing buffer handling code. So for now, I would like to keep it as
it-is.
>
>        Arnd
>
BR,
~Sumit.
> --
--
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/