linux-kernel - Re: [v11 3/7] 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:30:27 +0200
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, lkp@...el.com, Nuno
 Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,  linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,  linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, Christian
 König <christian.koenig@....com>, Jonathan Cameron
 <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Sumit Semwal
 <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Randy Dunlap
	 <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [v11 3/7] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

Le mercredi 19 juin 2024 à 13:13 +0200, Markus Elfring a écrit :
> > > Would you dare to transform the remaining goto chain into further
> > > applications
> > > of scope-based resource management?
> > 
> > We discussed this after v6 or v7, DRM/DMABUF maintainers were not
> > keen
> > on doing that *just yet*.
> 
> * Would you like to add any links for corresponding development
> discussions?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/219abc43b4fdd4a13b307ed2efaa0e6869e68e3f.camel@gmail.com/T/#eefd360069c4261aec9621fafde30924706571c94

(and responses below)

It's more nuanced than I remembered. Christian was OK to add cleanup.h
support to the DMABUF code as long as the examples were updated as
well, but those aren't good candidates as they don't free up the
resources in all code paths.

> 
> * Will the desire grow for further collateral evolution according to
>   affected software components?

Not sure what you mean by that.

Cheers,
-Paul