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: <fc14e35d-5538-abaa-045b-572b3e22f47c@xs4all.nl>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:27:00 +0100
From:   Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     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 2/19/20 9:16 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 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 ..."

"When set..." works well. It's explicit.

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> 	-ss
>