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  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:   Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:32:03 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <>
To:     Richard Cochran <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 01/13] lib: Add support for generic packing

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 <>
>> ---
>>   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 
How should I proceed? Should I resend just this patch to LKML, or a v2 
patchset with LKML copied on the lib patch?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists