linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:28:20 +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>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: in axidma slave_sg and
 dma_cyclic mode align split descriptors

On 28-09-18, 09:11, Andrea Merello wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:21 PM Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:

> > > @@ -1804,7 +1817,7 @@ static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *xilinx_dma_prep_slave_sg(
> > >                        * Calculate the maximum number of bytes to transfer,
> > >                        * making sure it is less than the hw limit
> > >                        */
> > > -                     copy = xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(sg_dma_len(sg),
> > > +                     copy = xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(chan, sg_dma_len(sg),
> >
> > why not keep chan in patch 1 and add only handling in patch 2, seems
> > less churn to me..
> 
> Indeed this was something I was unsure about.. I ended up in feeling
> better not to add introduce a function that takes an unused (yet)
> argument, but I can change this of course :)

IMO It is fine to add a user in subsequent patch in a series. Not fine to
add something and not use in "that" series :)

-- 
~Vinod