[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180131185448.GE8676@fury>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:54:48 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>,
Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Guard SMBIOS calls with a
mutex
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:35 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com> wrote:
>
> >> > dell_set_arguments(0x2, 0, 0, 0);
> >> > ret = dell_send_request(CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL);
> >>
> >> Hi! I'm looking at this code, and do we need shared global buffer with
> >> mutex protection at all? Is not buffer allocated on stack enough?
> >
> > Oh you mean rather than create buffer mutex to just remove global
> > buffer and allocate in each function? That seems like a workable
> > approach to me too.
> >
> > I'm fine with either way.
> >
> > Andy or Darren, what's your preference in this area?
>
> It reminds me USB stuff where buffer for transfer is allocated on heap
> before performing communication.
> So, it looks similar to some extent and I have no objection on that
> kind of approach.
Late to the party it seems, but FWIW:
I don't see a significant advantage of a global buffer. It doesn't *need* to be
global, and the locking just adds complexity. The heap solution seems much
preferable to me.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists