linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

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: <CAHp75Vfw=4L+ogWzfD+6OLQf9NUJ5TNiGMBG-4fNrmFMe1y8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 18:56:40 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:51 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
>
> > Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack memory.
> > The only reason why your solution might be better is that if DW DMA driver or
> > the DMA engine subsystem changed the dw_dma_slave structure instance passed to
> > the dma_request_channel() method, which non of them do. So I'll leave this for
> > Mark to decide. Mark, could you give us your final word about this?
>
> Honestly I'm struggling to care either way.  I guess saving a bit of
> stack is potentially useful.

Yes, but OTOH dropping maintainability by this is worse in my opinion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko