linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: Introduce TI message manager 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56E9FA7D.9050801@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:29:49 -0500
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
CC:	Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
	Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: Introduce TI message manager driver

Hi Jassi,

On 03/16/2016 12:16 AM, Jassi Brar wrote:

[...]
>> Alright, i will drop this check since it is causing a lot more
>> confusion
>>
> It's confusing because you check ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages()
> also in ti_msgmgr_last_tx_done() which doesn't make sense because the
> former accounts for messages from other senders also (as you say there
> could be multiple senders).


True -> I will drop it for now. I will see if the case I was trying to
protect is actually possible to be hit in the first place. And if proven
to be required, I will introduce it back with a better explanation and
the usecase where this is needed.

>> that that is worth. we can introduce it when we finally do
>> hit an issue eventually with multiple processors trying to transmit on
>> the same queue manager. that is not a concern at the very immediate
>> time, so we should be good to drop.
>>
>> please let me know if you are ok with this.
>>
> I am ok with whatever you assert is needed for your platform. I just
> point out what I think are inconsistencies in your assumptions. I'll
> pick the next revision however it is.


Thanks for your patience and guidance with this series. I have tried to
incorporate all the alignment we have had on this thread as part of
V3[1] of the series.


[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=145817434531691&w=2

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon