linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: at91: use dma safe buffers

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

Message-ID: <4e25e595-cccb-0970-67b3-fc215bfd5b14@amd.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 09:10:58 +0100
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Codrin Ciubotariu <codrin.ciubotariu@...rochip.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: at91: use dma safe buffers

Am 04.03.22 um 09:04 schrieb Wolfram Sang:
> Hi Christian,
>
>> Maybe call your variable differently. DMA-buf is an inter driver buffer
>> sharing frame we use for GPU acceleration and V4L.
>>
>> It doesn't cause any technical issues, but the maintainer regex now triggers
>> on that. So you are CCing people not related to this code in any way.
> Frankly, I think the 'dma_buf' regex is a bit too generic. 'dma_buf'
> seems like a reasonable name to me if some subsystem has to deal with
> different buffers which can be DMA or non-DMA, like I2C. If you git-grep
> the tree, you will find it in quite some places.
>
> We could now think of renaming the variable to 'dmabuf' but this is
> a strange and kind of arbitrary rule to remember IMO.
>
> I wonder if you'd miss a lot of patches if we remove 'dma_buf' from the
> regex and keep 'dma_fence' and 'dma_resv'? Or extend it to 'dma_buf_' or
> 'struct dma_buf'?

Yeah, I'm already considering something similar for a while.

I'm getting quite a bunch of unrelated mails because the regex is not 
the best.

On the other hand the framework is used in a lot of drivers and I do 
want to be notified when they mess with their interfaces.

Going to take a another look at that when I have time.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
> All the best,
>
>     Wolfram
>