linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] dma-direct: implement complete bus_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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180927162737.GA11974@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:27:37 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dma-direct: implement complete bus_dma_mask
 handling

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:14:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> This just seemed more readable to me than min_not_zero, but if others
>> prefer min_not_zero I can switch.
>
> Nah, just checking whether there were any intentionally different 
> assumptions compared to the couple of other places in the patch where 
> min_not_zero() *is* used. If it's purely a style thing then no worries 
> (personally I'd have written it yet another way anyway).

I'm curious: how would you have written it?