linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Add ff-memless-next driver

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]

Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:45:01 +0100
From:	Michal Malý <madcatxster@...fuk.cz>
To:	Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@....fi>
Cc:	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, elias.vds@...il.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	simon@...gewell.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] Add ff-memless-next driver

On Monday 24 of February 2014 04:11:04 Anssi Hannula wrote:
> 24.02.2014 03:54, Michal Malý kirjoitti:
> > I forgot to comment on this:
> >> Stopped effects should still be able to be updated.
> > 
> > Fair enough. I could not find a definitive answer to what is expected
> > behavior in this case. As far as I can tell, there are following cases:
> > - Effects with no duration and delay: they shall be updated right away.
> > - Effects with delay: updated parameters shall be sent to the device at
> > the
> > correct time.
> > - "Expired" effects with finite duration - ??? I assumed that effects with
> > finite duration that have already finished playing cannot be updated
> > because it does not seem to make much sense to do so.
> 
> "Expired" effects can always be played back again later - if that
> happens, the updated parameters will be in effect.
Okay, let me make this clear. When an effect "expires", update of its 
parameters shall not trigger a restart, therefore it will not play. However, 
when its parameters are updated and the effect is started again at some point, 
the updated parameters shall be used. I will double-check this just to be on 
the safe side, but MLNX always stores the updated parameters no matter what 
the status of the effect is, so it should behave exactly as you suggest. 
Perhaps it was just me misinterpreting the semantics of "update"?

To bring this to a conclusion:
- Do you think that this work is worth mainlining?
- If it is, what do you suggest I change?

Thanks a lot for your input.

Michal M.
--
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/