linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: add generic helpers to check, match, maximize ECC settings

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: <CAK7LNAT=b+QyK8xBafd8DvHLtwTovzuj44hz=CThqDmO-Gb4aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 17:23:37 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Enrico Jorns <ejo@...gutronix.de>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Graham Moore <grmoore@...nsource.altera.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
        Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: add generic helpers to check, match,
 maximize ECC settings

Hi Boris,

2017-05-18 16:09 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:

>>
>> One question about this part.
>>
>>
>>        /* If chip->ecc.size is already set, respect it. */
>>        if (chip->ecc.size && step_size != chip->ecc.size)
>>                continue;
>>
>> Does this make sense for nand_try_to_maximize_ecc()?
>>
>> (In other words, can nand-ecc-maximize stand together with nand-ecc-step-size?)
>
> It could make sense if one wants to maximize the strength for a
> specific step-size, but most of the time the user will let the driver
> choose the best step-size+strength pair.


OK.  I am keeping it here, but I do not have a strong opinion about this.
I will follow your decision.

Thanks.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada