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: <CAHp75VcY9HG3=wft9VFWKJD9PG6TiSbmOyjgYZyue+z3PW_eCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 19:02:32 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        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 6:58 PM Serge Semin
<Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:51:43PM +0100, Mark Brown 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.
>
> Settled then.

With whom?

> Let's leave the patch as is.

Mark, should I send a partial revert afterwards in this case?
I'm not fully satisfied with it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko