linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

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, 29 Jan 2024 14:17:22 +0100
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

Am 29.01.24 um 14:06 schrieb Paul Cercueil:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Le lundi 29 janvier 2024 à 13:52 +0100, Christian König a écrit :
>> Am 27.01.24 um 17:50 schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
>>>>>> +	iio_buffer_dmabuf_put(attach);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +out_dmabuf_put:
>>>>>> +	dma_buf_put(dmabuf);
>>>>> As below. Feels like a __free(dma_buf_put) bit of magic would
>>>>> be a
>>>>> nice to have.
>>>> I'm working on the patches right now, just one quick question.
>>>>
>>>> Having a __free(dma_buf_put) requires that dma_buf_put is first
>>>> "registered" as a freeing function using DEFINE_FREE() in
>>>> <linux/dma-
>>>> buf.h>, which has not been done yet.
>>>>
>>>> That would mean carrying a dma-buf specific patch in your tree,
>>>> are you
>>>> OK with that?
>>> Needs an ACK from appropriate maintainer, but otherwise I'm fine
>>> doing
>>> so.  Alternative is to circle back to this later after this code is
>>> upstream.
>> Separate patches for that please, the autocleanup feature is so new
>> that
>> I'm not 100% convinced that everything works out smoothly from the
>> start.
> Separate patches is a given, did you mean outside this patchset?
> Because I can send a separate patchset that introduces scope-based
> management for dma_fence and dma_buf, but then it won't have users.

Outside of the patchset, this is essentially brand new stuff.

IIRC we have quite a number of dma_fence selftests and sw_sync which is 
basically code inside the drivers/dma-buf directory only there for 
testing DMA-buf functionality.

Convert those over as well and I'm more than happy to upstream this change.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
> Cheers,
> -Paul