linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] hwspinlock: Introduce raw capability for hwspinlock

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:	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:25:30 +0300
From:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To:	Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] hwspinlock: Introduce raw capability for hwspinlock_device

Hi Lina,

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> Any comments?

Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open.

Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the
RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware detail.

As far as I can see, the hardware-specific differences (if any) are at
the vendor level and not at the lock level, therefore it might make
more sense to add the caps member to hwspinlock_device rather than to
the hwspinlock struct (Jeffrey commented about this too).

Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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/