linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors

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:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:36:38 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, monstr@...str.eu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	broonie@...aro.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO
 accessors

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:44:03PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This RFC series attempts to define a portable (i.e. cross-architecture)
> definition of the {readX,writeX}_relaxed MMIO accessor functions. These
> functions are already in widespread use amongst drivers (mainly those supporting
> devices embedded in ARM SoCs), but lack any well-defined semantics and,
> subsequently, any portable definitions to allow these drivers to be compiled for
> other architectures.

Could this be made in such a way that only architectures that need
to provide their own versions actually have to add them?

The current patch-set adds the same dummy defines all over,
and will put this burden also on new architectures.

	Sam
--
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/