linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] mailbox: Introduce a new common 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_Zhffm9FOk83dAdX194gN3r5JnG78sdcWNv6WnWCsTF3YuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 May 2013 00:19:31 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:	Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	"Loic PALLARDY (loic.pallardy@...com)" <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] mailbox: Introduce a new common API

On 9 May 2013 23:35, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:

>>
>> Perhaps we should change the following
>>
>>    void ipc_link_txdone(struct ipc_link *link, enum xfer_result r)
>> to
>>    void ipc_link_txdone(struct ipc_link *link, enum xfer_result r, void *data)
>>
>> So that the API could pass that onto clients ?
>
> That's if the controller needs to pass some data back to client. I am
> fine with that as well,
No, I misunderstood you wanted request_token_t to be replaced with the
pointer of request that was executed.

> but I am talking mainly about providing a client
> user data ptr back to it during callbacks.
>
> struct ipc_client {
>         char *chan_name;
> +       void *cl_data; /* store it to ipc_chan as well */
> -       void (*rxcb)(void *data);
> -       void (*txcb)(request_token_t t, enum xfer_result r);
> +       void (*rxcb)(void *cl_data, void *data);
> +       void (*txcb)(request_token_t t, enum xfer_result r, void *cl_data);
>         ...
> }
>
> I am obviously interested in the rxcb. The controller implementations do
> not see the cl_data.
>
OK I see what you mean. However the API storing and passing back
ad-hoc data to clients doesn't seem very neat.

Such purposes are usually served by :

- void (*rxcb)(void *data);
+ void (*rxcb)(struct ipc_client *cl, void *data);  /* client for
which data was received */

- void (*txcb)(request_token_t t, enum xfer_result r);
+ void (*txcb)(struct ipc_client *cl, request_token_t t, enum
xfer_result r); /* client whose data was sent */

You could then get relevant omap_rproc using container_of() on 'cl',
in rxcb() and txcb().


Apart from this, in txcb, perhaps we should drop request_token_t in
favor of the request's pointer (void *data) that was last executed.
That should make things easier for clients.

regards,
-jassi
--
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/