linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 01/12] videobuf2: add cache management members

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]

Message-ID: <20200219081638.GB122464@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:16:38 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Pawel Osciak <posciak@...omium.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 01/12] videobuf2: add cache management members

On (20/02/19 09:05), Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 2/4/20 3:56 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:

[..]

> > diff --git a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > index a2b2208b02da..026004180440 100644
> > --- a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > +++ b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > @@ -263,6 +263,10 @@ struct vb2_buffer {
> >  	 *			after the 'buf_finish' op is called.
> >  	 * copied_timestamp:	the timestamp of this capture buffer was copied
> >  	 *			from an output buffer.
> > +	 * need_cache_sync_on_prepare: do not sync/invalidate cache from
> > +	 * 			buffer's ->prepare() callback.
> > +	 * need_cache_sync_on_finish: do not sync/invalidate cache from buffer's
> > +	 * 			->finish() callback.
> 
> Shouldn't 'do not' be deleted from the flag descriptions? If the flag is set,
> then you need to sync/validate, right?

Hmm, kind of work both ways. Maybe the wording can be more specific,
e.g. "Do/skip cache sync/invalidation" even more detailed "When set
perform cache sync/invalidation from ..."

	-ss