linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] accel: add dedicated minor for accelerator devices

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: <CAFCwf11AMAYgKHJia87x0gsZ2ufVK1ZQqXqDLLimeeTVQVp2CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 23:06:41 +0200
From:   Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Yuji Ishikawa <yuji2.ishikawa@...hiba.co.jp>,
        Jiho Chu <jiho.chu@...sung.com>,
        Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maciej Kwapulinski <maciej.kwapulinski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] accel: add dedicated minor for accelerator devices

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:20 PM Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2022 2:02 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> > @@ -8,14 +8,25 @@
> >
> >   #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> >   #include <linux/device.h>
> > +#include <linux/xarray.h>
>
> If we are not using xarray at this time, do we still need this include?
>
> >
> >   #include <drm/drm_accel.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_debugfs.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
> >   #include <drm/drm_ioctl.h>
> >   #include <drm/drm_print.h>
> >
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(accel_minor_lock);
> > +static struct idr accel_minors_idr;
>
> I beleive we should have an explicit include for the IDR header.
>
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> > @@ -8,12 +8,56 @@
> >   #ifndef DRM_ACCEL_H_
> >   #define DRM_ACCEL_H_
> >
> > -#define ACCEL_MAJOR     261
> > +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
> > +
> > +#define ACCEL_MAJOR          261
> > +#define ACCEL_MAX_MINORS     256
>
> This diff seems really weird.  The changes to the ACCEL_MAJOR define
> could get pushed to the previous patch, no?
>
> > @@ -23,9 +67,31 @@ static inline void accel_core_exit(void)
> >
> >   static inline int __init accel_core_init(void)
> >   {
> > +     /* Return 0 to allow drm_core_init to complete successfully */
>
> Move to previous patch?
>
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> > @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ enum drm_driver_feature {
> >        * synchronization of command submission.
> >        */
> >       DRIVER_SYNCOBJ_TIMELINE         = BIT(6),
> > +     /**
> > +      * @DRIVER_COMPUTE_ACCEL:
> > +      *
> > +      * Driver supports compute acceleration devices. This flag is mutually exclusive with
> > +      * @DRIVER_RENDER and @DRIVER_MODESET. Devices that support both graphics and compute
> > +      * acceleration should be handled by two drivers that are connected using auxiliry bus.
>
> auxiliry -> auxiliary
>
All comments will be fixed.
Thanks,
Oded