linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YN7CEKj9787TTcCT@kunai>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:36:48 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de,
        jasowang@...hat.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        yu1.wang@...el.com, shuo.a.liu@...el.com, conghui.chen@...el.com,
        stefanha@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver

On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:51:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-07-21, 15:15, Jie Deng wrote:
> > Then what is the need to design this interface as "return the number of
> > messages successfully
> > processed, or a negative value on error". Just return success or fail is
> > enough.

Let me quote a comment from the I2C core which is there since 2008:

        /* REVISIT the fault reporting model here is weak:
         *
         *  - When we get an error after receiving N bytes from a slave,
         *    there is no way to report "N".
         *
         *  - When we get a NAK after transmitting N bytes to a slave,
         *    there is no way to report "N" ... or to let the master
         *    continue executing the rest of this combined message, if
         *    that's the appropriate response.
         *
         *  - When for example "num" is two and we successfully complete
         *    the first message but get an error part way through the
         *    second, it's unclear whether that should be reported as
         *    one (discarding status on the second message) or errno
         *    (discarding status on the first one).
         */

> for 5.14-rc1/2.. So it would be better if you resend the next version as soon as
> possible :)

I won't be around for the next two weeks after today.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)