linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dmaengine: ptdma: Initial driver for the AMD PTDMA

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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:34:49 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Sanjay R Mehta <sanmehta@....com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        Thomas.Lendacky@....com, Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com,
        Nehal-bakulchandra.Shah@....com, robh@...nel.org,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dmaengine: ptdma: Initial driver for the AMD PTDMA

On 18-03-21, 16:16, Sanjay R Mehta wrote:
> >> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> >> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> +#include <linux/kthread.h>
> >> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> +#include <linux/pci_ids.h>
> >> +#include <linux/pci.h>
> >> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > 
> > why do you need sched.h here?
> > 
> >> +
> >> +#include "ptdma.h"
> >> +
> >> +/* Ever-increasing value to produce unique unit numbers */
> >> +static atomic_t pt_ordinal;
> > 
> > What is the need of that?
> > 
> 

[please wrap your emails within 80 chars]

> The "pt_ordinal" is incremented for each DMA instances and its number
> is used only to assign device name for each instances.  This same
> device name is passed as a string parameter in many places in code
> like while using request_irq(), dma_pool_create() and in debugfs.

Why do you need that, why not use device name which is unique..?

> Also, I have implemented all of the comments for this patch except
> this. if this is fine, will send the next version for review.

Am not sure I remember all the comments I gave, it has been _quite_ a
while since the feedback was provided. In order to have effective review
it would be great to revert back on a reasonable timeline and discuss...

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod