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  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]
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:01:24 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     masonccyang@...c.com.tw
Cc:     "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        bbrezillon@...nel.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, juliensu@...c.com.tw,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        marek.vasut@...il.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mtd: rawnand: Add support manufacturer specific
 lock/unlock operatoin

Hi Mason,

masonccyang@...c.com.tw wrote on Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:14:23 +0800:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> >   
> > >  /* Set default functions */
> > >  static void nand_set_defaults(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -5782,8 +5810,8 @@ static int nand_scan_tail(struct nand_chip   
> *chip)
> > >     mtd->_read_oob = nand_read_oob;
> > >     mtd->_write_oob = nand_write_oob;
> > >     mtd->_sync = nand_sync;
> > > -   mtd->_lock = NULL;
> > > -   mtd->_unlock = NULL;
> > > +   mtd->_lock = nand_lock;
> > > +   mtd->_unlock = nand_unlock;
> > >     mtd->_suspend = nand_suspend;
> > >     mtd->_resume = nand_resume;
> > >     mtd->_reboot = nand_shutdown;
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > index 4ab9bcc..2430ecd 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
> > > @@ -1136,6 +1136,9 @@ struct nand_chip {
> > >        const struct nand_manufacturer *desc;
> > >        void *priv;
> > >     } manufacturer;
> > > +
> > > +   int (*_lock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
> > > +   int (*_unlock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);  
> > 
> > Please drop this _ prefix.  
> 
> Drop _ prefix of _lock will get compile error due to there is already 
> defined "struct mutex lock" in struct nand_chip.

Right!

> 
> What about keep this _ prefix or patch it to blocklock/blockunlock,
> i.e.,
> int (*blocklock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
> int (*blockunlock)(struct nand_chip *chip, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);

What about lock_area() unlock_area() ? Seems more accurate to me, tell
me if I'm wrong.

>  
> 
> thanks for your time & comments.
> Mason

Thanks,
Miquèl

Powered by blists - more mailing lists