linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma: Add devm_dma_request

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9354a990-b4ef-4ca1-8666-6c5905eaf86d@prolan.hu>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:09:54 +0100
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mark Brown
	<broonie@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma: Add devm_dma_request_chan()

Hi,

On 2025. 02. 03. 13:27, Alexander Dahl wrote:
>> +	if (!IS_ERR(chan))
>> +		ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, dmaenginem_release_channel, chan);
> 
> Why not using dma_release_channel() directly here?  What's the point
> of introducing dmaenginem_release_channel() further above?

I followed the existing practice, used by 
`dmaenginem_async_device_unregister()`. I suspect it was done like this 
because the devm callback function's signature takes a `void *` and not 
`struct dma_chan *`.

Bence