linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] dmaengine: bcm-sba-raid: Common flags for sba

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: <20170818052501.GD3053@localhost>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:55:01 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:     Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Device Tree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] dmaengine: bcm-sba-raid: Common flags for
 sba_request state and fence

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:26:54AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:07:47PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> This patch merges sba_request state and fence into common
> >> sba_request flags. Also, in-future we can extend sba_request
> >> flags as required.
> >
> > and it also changes the flag values to bits, which I have no idea why that
> > was done, care to explain that please...
> 
> I thought its better to have separate bit each sba_request state so
> that when a sba_request is accidentally in two states then we can
> debug better.

that is fine, but you need to comminucate the motivation behind such a
change!!

> 
> I will restore state values.

either ways am okay, but if we are not using bits smartly then why to change

-- 
~Vinod