netdev - Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH

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: <000401cb4042$f5ea66f0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:37:41 +0900
From:	"Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@....okisemi.com>
To:	"Wolfgang Grandegger" <wg@...ndegger.com>
Cc:	"Wang, Qi" <qi.wang@...el.com>, <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	<meego-dev@...go.com>, "Wang, Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@...el.com>,
	<gregkh@...e.de>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>,
	"Khor, Andrew Chih Howe" <andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>,
	"Morinaga" <morinaga526@....okisemi.com>
Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_CAN driver to 2.6.35

Hi Wolfgang,

Thank you for your comment.
We don't use kfifo infrastructure but brush up with current framework.

Thanks, Ohtake(OKISEMI)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolfgang Grandegger" <wg@...ndegger.com>
To: "Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@....okisemi.com>
Cc: "Wang, Qi" <qi.wang@...el.com>; <arjan@...ux.intel.com>; <meego-dev@...go.com>; "Wang, Yong Y"
<yong.y.wang@...el.com>; <gregkh@...e.de>; <netdev@...r.kernel.org>; <socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>; "Khor, Andrew
Chih Howe" <andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com>; "Morinaga" <morinaga526@....okisemi.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_CAN driver to 2.6.35


> Hi Ohtake,
>
> On 08/20/2010 08:01 AM, Masayuki Ohtake wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> >>>>>> 2. Why don't you use kernel existing kfifo infrastructure? ([2]).
> >>>>> Just take a look at kfifo.h. This structure has been changed. I remembered
> >>>> there was a spin_lock from kfifo previously. Currently it's been removed, good.
> >>>>> OKI-sans, would you please take a look at ./include/linux/kfifo.h, and try to
> >>>> use this structure and APIs?
> >>>>
> >>>> As I see it, the code related to that fifo is not used (== dead code)?
> >>> I'm not familiar with kfifo structure, and I didn't like it because there need a spin_lock to use it.
> >
> > We are about to study kfifo infra structure.
> > I have a question.
> >
> > It seems all CAN drivers accepted by upstream don't use kfifo infrastructure, right ?
>
> Right!
>
> > (I couldn't see message with "grep kfifo * in drivers/net/can")
> >
> > If yes, why should we use the kfifo ?
> > If no, please show me the kfifo reference driver
>
> Sorry, nobody (of the socketcan core developers) said that kfifo should
> be used. We believe, that an additional queuing of CAN messages is *not*
> needed at all. Just eliminate the related code and follow more closely
> the existing mainline drivers.
>
> Wolfgang.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html