linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dma-mapping: benchmark: modify the framework to adapt to more map modes

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: <294a3819-d850-4d90-8112-da9a21a6acf1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 11:13:32 +0800
From: Qinxin Xia <xiaqinxin@...wei.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
CC: <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
	<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <prime.zeng@...wei.com>, <fanghao11@...wei.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dma-mapping: benchmark: modify the framework to
 adapt to more map modes



On 2025/12/23 10:58:28, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
> I’ve reviewed it many times. You are:
> 
> +               if (!mb_ops->prepare_data)
> +                       mb_ops->prepare_data(mparam);
> 
> not
>                 if (mb_ops->prepare_data)
>                         mb_ops->prepare_data(mparam);
> Am I crazy?
> 
> Thanks
> Barry
Yes, I've found the mistake...

So in my just reply, I mentioned the correct modification of the
"if (mb_ops->prepare_data)" and suggested that if you want to test it
before the next version, you can modify the patch in this way.

Sorry for the confusion

-- 
Thanks,
Qinxin