linux-kernel - Re: [char-misc-next 01/12 v3] mei: Rename mei_device to mei

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130220105731.GT18295@sortiz-mobl>
Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:57:31 +0100
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 01/12 v3] mei: Rename mei_device to mei_host

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
> > > > > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI
> > > > > bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look
> > > > > a bit awkward. Greg, Arnd, any preference ?
> > > >
> > > > "mei_device" works the best for me.  Tomas, what you think of as a "MEI
> > > > Device" really is a "MEI Controller", it bridges the difference between
> > > > the PCI bus and your new MEI bus, so you will need to start thinking of
> > > > these things a bit differently now that you have created your own little
> > > > virtual bus.
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree. mei_bus_device would also work as the name for the controller,
> > > but not for the devices attached to it IMO.
> > Tomas, I propose to switch to mei_controller instead of mei_host and keep the
> > mei_device name for the devices we attach to the MEI bus.
> > Does that work for you ?
> >
> 
> The issue is that when we added our virtual bus we haven't gave up on
> /dev/mei backed by mei_device
> This is the interface, defined in linux/mei.h  which user space
> applications use to connect to ME Clients within ME device.
> Any ME client can be connected through this interface and we have few
> legacy applications running for few years that use this interface so
> we are not going to break them.
> 
> What we've done now is we added a virtual bus so also in-kernel
> applications/subsystems can more naturally connect to the ME Clients,
> this connection is client specific.  So the device that connect to the
> bus is not an mei device but mei client device hence the name I've
> proposed mei_cl_device.
I don't have a strong opinion here, so that would be fine with me.
Greg, Arnd, would mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver be an acceptable compromise?

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
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/