linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] PCI: endpoint: Rename BME to Bus Master Enable

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: <20240419092629.GA3636@thinkpad>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:56:29 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mhi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] PCI: endpoint: Rename BME to Bus Master Enable

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:49:04PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:28:31PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > BME which stands for 'Bus Master Enable' is not defined in the PCIe base
> > spec even though it is commonly referred in many places (vendor docs). But
> > to align with the spec, let's rename it to its expansion 'Bus Master
> > Enable'.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> > ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
> 
> 
> Outside the scope of this patch/series:
> Do we perhaps want to add a bus_master_enable() callback also for the
> pci-epf-test driver?
> 

Makes sense to me.

> In my opinion, the test driver should be "the driver" that tests that
> all the EPF features/callbacks work, at least a basic test "does it
> work at all". Other EPF drivers can implement the callbacks, and do
> more intelligent things, i.e. more than just seeing that "it works".
> 

Agree. Feel free to send a patch :)

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்