netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 01/13] lib: Add support for generic packing operations

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: <3cd07aa5-02b0-c539-83f9-215d631dc1da@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:32:03 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 01/13] lib: Add support for generic packing
 operations

On 3/24/19 9:02 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 05:23:34AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> This provides an unified API for accessing register bit fields
>> regardless of memory layout. The basic unit of data for these API
>> functions is the u64. The process of transforming an u64 from native CPU
>> encoding into the peripheral's encoding is called 'pack', and
>> transforming it from peripheral to native CPU encoding is 'unpack'.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/packing.txt | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   MAINTAINERS               |   8 ++
>>   include/linux/packing.h   |  49 +++++++++
>>   lib/Makefile              |   2 +-
>>   lib/packing.c             | 211 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> For this kind of generic infrastructure, you really should CC the lkml
> to get proper review.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
> 

Hi Richard,

I didn't want to pollute LKML with the entire driver patchset from the 
get-go, just receive some initial feedback from netdev first (hence the 
RFC).
How should I proceed? Should I resend just this patch to LKML, or a v2 
patchset with LKML copied on the lib patch?

Thanks,
-Vladimir