linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver

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: <20210324064435.qbsbtjax2iklubfh@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:14:35 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, wsa@...nel.org,
        jasowang@...hat.com, wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, conghui.chen@...el.com,
        arnd@...db.de, kblaiech@...lanox.com,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru,
        rppt@...nel.org, loic.poulain@...aro.org, tali.perry1@...il.com,
        u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        yu1.wang@...el.com, shuo.a.liu@...el.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver

On 24-03-21, 14:41, Jie Deng wrote:
> 
> On 2021/3/24 14:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 24-03-21, 14:05, Jie Deng wrote:
> > Or, now that I think about it a bit more, another thing we can do here is see if
> > virtqueue_get_buf() returns NULL, if it does then we should keep expecting more
> > messages as it may be early interrupt. What do you say ?
> 
> I don't think we really need this because for this device, early interrupt
> is a bad operation
> which should be avoided. I can't think of why this device need to send early
> interrupt, what
> we can do is to clarify that this means loss of the remaining requests. A
> device should never
> do this, if it does then loss is the expected result.

Fair enough.

-- 
viresh