linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec

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, 12 Feb 2024 13:35:12 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Cc: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
	Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-mem: add statistics support to ->exec_op() calls

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:43:55PM +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> On Feb 09, 2024 at 14:51:23 +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:

> > +	/*
> > +	 * We do not have the concept of messages or transfers. Let's consider
> > +	 * that one operation is equivalent to one message and one transfer.

> Why 1 message _and_ 1 xfer and not simply 1 xfer?
> Even in the example of testing that you showed above the values for
> message and xfer are anyway going to be same, then why have these 2
> members in the first place? Can we not do away with one of these?

If the device supports regular SPI operations as well as spi-mem
operations then this will ensure that the spi-mem stats fit in with the
other operations.  If it only supports spi-mem operations it would not
matter so much.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)