linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations

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: <20170616065226.59d80721@w520.home>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:52:26 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Xiaoguang Chen <xiaoguang.chen@...el.com>,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com,
        zhiyuan.lv@...el.com, intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        zhi.a.wang@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] vfio: Define vfio based dma-buf operations

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:24:42 +0200
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com> wrote:

>   Hi,
> 
> > I'm not sure I agree regarding the vgpu statement, maybe this is not
> > dmabuf specific, but what makes it vgpu specific?  We need to
> > separate
> > our current usage plans from what it's actually describing and I
> > don't
> > see that it describes anything vgpu specific.  
> 
> Well, it describes a framebuffer, what non-graphic device would need
> that?

Graphics is not necessarily vgpu though, which is my point.  It should
not be named after our intended use case (vgpu), it should be named
after what it's describing (a framebuffer, or graphics plane).  Thanks,

Alex