linux-kernel - Re: [PATHCv10 1/2] usb: USB Type-C connector class

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: <CAPTae5KsUQow-Doo+Wc=Efc3cZpzUzZfszLOMkAKiF0PXtPiSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:30:23 -0800
From:   Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATHCv10 1/2] usb: USB Type-C connector class

> IMHO the uevent is cheaper. User space cannot just poll without further
> infrastructure. A task needs to run to poll. A uevent can be handled
> through established infrastructure.

Thanks Oliver for stating this. This is exactly what I was facing.

> OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those.
>
> So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in
> typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or
> cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver?

Yes Heikki.. That's OK for me as well.
Just to get my understanding right. You are planning to add
KOBJ_CHANGE uevents when current_power_role or
current_data_role changes and KOBJ_ADD when new port-partner
or the cable is attached. Is that right ?

Thanks,
Badhri.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:09 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those.
>>
>> So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in
>> typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or
>> cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver?
>
> OK by me.
>
>         Regards
>                 Oliver
>
>