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: <CAALAos-UJ4QLbtyE0XzPR=HepDH1m4YnLQG=nTwaL47991F7vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:35:51 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.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 10:55 AM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> 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!!

Okay, I will add this info to commit description.

>
>>
>> I will restore state values.
>
> either ways am okay, but if we are not using bits smartly then why to change

Okay, I will keep new state values as-is and only update commit
description.

Regards,
Anup