linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: in axidma slave_sg and dma

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180629081939.GA22377@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:49:39 +0530
From:   Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@...il.com>
Cc:     dan.j.williams@...el.com, michal.simek@...inx.com,
        appana.durga.rao@...inx.com, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: in axidma slave_sg and
 dma_cylic mode align split descriptors

On 29-06-18, 09:46, Andrea Merello wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:

> >> +
> >> +                     if ((copy + sg_used < period_len) &&
> >> +                         chan->xdev->common.copy_align) {
> >> +                             /*
> >> +                              * If this is not the last descriptor, make sure
> >> +                              * the next one will be properly aligned
> >> +                              */
> >> +                             copy = rounddown(copy,
> >> +                                     (1 << chan->xdev->common.copy_align));
> >> +                     }
> >
> > same code pasted twice, can we have a routine for this... perhaps more
> > code can be made common too
> 
> Yes, I see.. Indeed there was duplicated code before this series and
> it is still there after it.
> 
> I can see if we can have a routine as you suggested at least for the
> code portions touched by this patch. Do you eventually want this extra
> change to be done in the same patch 1/5 or do you want a separate
> patch i.e. 2/6 or 6/6 ?

Each patch should do one thing, so would make sense to move first and
then add you on top of that. 1/6 commonize and 2/6 add this bit.


-- 
~Vinod