[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206062822.GB20995@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:28:22 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:01:42PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 12/02/2017 07:53 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > This is one of the item in the TODO list before been able to unstage ION
> > > which is my real need.
> > Why does it matter where in the tree this code is? Don't go adding new
> > things to it that are not needed. Who needs this? What userspace code
> > wants this type of multiple ion devices?
> >
>
> Requirements came in from several places to split /dev/ion -> /dev/ion0
> and /dev/ion1 so that security policy (i.e. selinux) could be used to
> protect access to certain heaps. I wanted the ABI to be settled before
> trying to move out of staging, hence the line in the TODO list about
> doing the split.
Ok, but we should have some way of testing it works, right? :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists