On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:46:10PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2017-12-13 16:39 GMT+01:00 Mark Brown :
> > I (probably unsurprisingly) prefer my version that I posted yesterday as
> > it gives us the trivial memory saving of not having the flag if debugfs
> > is disabled but more important
2017-12-13 16:39 GMT+01:00 Mark Brown :
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
>> if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
>> debugfs entries at all in this case.
>
> I
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
> if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
> debugfs entries at all in this case.
I (probably unsurprisingly) prefer my version that
2017-12-13 15:54 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko :
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
>> if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
>> debugfs entries at all in this case.
>>
>> Su
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
> if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
> debugfs entries at all in this case.
>
> Suggested-by: Lars-Peter Clausen
> Signed-off-by: Bar
User space can initiate concurrent access to regmap over debugfs and,
if the locking is disabled, we can't protect it. Don't create the
debugfs entries at all in this case.
Suggested-by: Lars-Peter Clausen
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski
---
drivers/base/regmap/internal.h | 2 ++
drive
6 matches
Mail list logo
