linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv5,RESEND 2/8] gpu: host1x: Add syncpoint wait and interrupts

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: <5112C00D.7010507@nvidia.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:41:49 -0800
From:	Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@...dia.com>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
CC:	Arto Merilainen <amerilainen@...dia.com>,
	"airlied@...ux.ie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5,RESEND 2/8] gpu: host1x: Add syncpoint wait and interrupts

On 06.02.2013 12:38, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:29:26PM -0800, Terje Bergström wrote:
>> This was done purely, because I'm hiding the struct size from the
>> caller. If the caller needs to allocate, I need to expose the struct in
>> a header, not just a forward declaration.
> 
> I don't think we need to hide the struct from the caller. This is all
> host1x internal. Even if a host1x client uses the struct it makes little
> sense to hide it. They are all part of the same code base so there's not
> much to be gained by hiding the structure definition.

I agree, and will change.

>> Ok, I'll add the wrapper, and I'll check if passing struct host1x *
>> would make sense. In effect that'd render struct host1x_intr mostly
>> unused, so how about if we just merge the contents of host1x_intr to host1x?
> 
> We can probably do that. It might make some sense to keep it in order to
> scope the related fields but struct host1x isn't very large yet, so I
> think omitting host1x_intr should be fine.

Yes, it's not very large, and it'd remove a lot of casting between
host1x and host1x_intr, so I'll just do that.

Terje

--
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/