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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:50:48 +0200 From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>, "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>, "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com" <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>, "fred.oh@...ux.intel.com" <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:38:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote: > [..] > > All stated above is my opinion, it can be different from yours. > > Yes, but we need to converge to move this forward. Jason was involved > in the current organization for registration, Greg was angling for > this to be core functionality. I have use cases outside of RDMA and > netdev. Parav was ok with the current organization. The SOF folks > already have a proposed incorporation of it. The argument I am hearing > is that "this registration api seems hard for driver writers" when we > have several driver writers who have already taken a look and can make > it work. If you want to follow on with a simpler wrappers for your use > case, great, but I do not yet see anyone concurring with your opinion > that the current organization is irretrievably broken or too obscure > to use. That's kind of because I tuned out of this thread a long time ago :) I do agree with Leon that I think the current patch is not the correct way to do this the easiest, but don't have a competing proposal to show what I mean. Yet. Let's see what happens after 5.10-rc1 is out, it's too late now for any of this for this next merge window so we can not worry about it for a few weeks. thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists