linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read request

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: <56C2D731.6050306@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:30:49 +0530
From:	Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"hramrach@...il.com" <hramrach@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read
 request



On 02/13/2016 04:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>> On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:39:58AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> 
>>>> +	if (spi_flash_read_supported(spi)) {
>>>> +		struct spi_flash_read_message msg;
>>>> +		int ret;
> 
>>> Looking at this I can't help but think that spi_flash_read() ought to
>>> have the stub in rather than the caller.  But given that we're pretty
>>> much only ever expecting one user I'm not 100% sure it actually matters.
> 
>> Well, my initial patch set passed long list of arguments to
>> spi_flash_read(), but Brian suggested to use struct[1] in order to avoid
>> unnecessary churn when things need changed in the API.
> 
> I don't see what that has to do with my point?
> 

AFAIU, your previous comment was to move initialization of
spi_flash_read_message struct to spi_flash_read(). This would mean
sending long list of arguments to spi_flash_read() which needs to be
updated whenever an argument needs to be added/deleted (in future).
Instead passing around a struct would be much easier in case of
adding/removing parameters.
Please correct me if I misunderstood your comment?

-- 
Regards
Vignesh