linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] fpga: dfl: afu: add user afu sub feature support

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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:17:14 -0500
From:   Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
To:     Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, "Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Yi Z" <yi.z.zhang@...el.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@...el.com>,
        Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@...el.com>,
        Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@...el.com>,
        Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] fpga: dfl: afu: add user afu sub feature support

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hao,
>>
>> > From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
>> >
>> > User Accelerated Function Unit sub feature exposes the MMIO region of
>>
>> Is it 'user accelerated'?  I think it is the Accelerator interface.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> This is only used to emphasize this is the interface to accelerator
> exposed to user. But looks like this causes some confusions for user
> actually from the description. I agree with you, that I will remove
> this UAFU from this patchset.
>
>>
>> > the AFU. After valid green bitstream (GBS) is programmed and port is
>>
>> Would it make sense to just use "partial bitstream" or "PR bitstream"
>> and "static bitstream" for this patchset?  I don't think that adding
>> this terminology makes things clearer.  In any case when someone else
>> uses this patchset, they may not be using this type of branding in
>> their terminology.
>
> Sure, will update the commit message and also sysfs doc below.

Yes and dfl.txt and the rest of the patchset as well, please.

Alan