On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:01PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Friday, August 15, 2008 11:55 am Jean Delvare wrote: > > In fact we can do even better than that. We could accept from > > user-space only driver_data values which at least one device ID entry in > > the driver already uses. That should be fairly easy to implement, and > > would offer a level of safety an order of magnitude above what we have > > at the moment... And it works both ways: if 0 is not a valid data for > > some driver, that would force the user to provide a non-zero (and > > valid) data value. And it guarantees that the user can't ask for > > something the driver doesn't expect, so drivers don't even need extra > > checks. And no need for a use_driver_data flag either. > > Meaning a driver audit of the usage? Yeah that would be great. > > > The only drawback is that it prevents the user from passing a "new" > > data value even if it would be valid. But honestly, I don't expect that > > case to happen frequently... if ever at all. So I'd say the benefits > > totally outweight the drawback. > > > > If the interested people agree with the idea, I'll look into > > implementing it. > > Well the audit would show if user supplied "new" values are needed; otherwise > the approach sounds good to me. That sounds reasonable, and should work properly. No objection from me. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
