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:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 11:00:10 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <>
To:     Dan Williams <>
Cc:     "Ertman, David M" <>,
        Parav Pandit <>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <>,
        "" <>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <>
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 <> 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.

Can it be that I'm first one to use this bus for very large driver (>120K LOC)
that has 5 different ->probe() flows?

For example, this
hints to me that this bus wasn't used with anything complex as it was initially intended.

And regarding registration, I said many times that init()/add() scheme is ok, the inability
to call to uninit() after add() failure is not ok from my point of view.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists