The following five patches are for the Restricted Access Region
Register (rar_register) driver.
This driver is for the Intel MID platform.
Restricted access regions are regions of memory that can be
locked so that the x86 processor cannot access them. However,
peripheral devices with DMA can access them.
Restricted access regions are used to protect sensitive
information from access by unauthorized software running
on the x86 processor.
The scenario is that encrypted information is presented to
an encryption/decryption device. That device in turn does
decryption of the information and places into one of the
restricted access regions. Another device can then access
and use the decrypted information. The x86 processor, however,
cannot see that data.
The rar_register driver provides address information for the
individual restricted access regions to other device driver
that need to use the regions.
The rar_register also locks restricted access regions upon
request by other device drivers.
The rar_register device does not interact with user space
processes at all. It only ineracts with other device driver.
There are five patches. They are:
Patch 1 of 5 for rar_register; renaming to rar_register
This renames the current rar resigter driver to
the name rar_register. This is to differentiate
it from the rar_handler driver, which will be
submitted later.
Patch 2 of 5 for rar_register - renaming directory to rar_register
This renames the directory in which the driver files
are located; again for clarity.
Patch 3 of 5 for rar_register - provide better explanation in Kconfig
This patch provides a better explanation of what this
driver is for in the Kconfig file
Patch 4 of 5 for rar_register - fix checkpatch errors and debug header
This patch cleans up checkpatch errors and warnings as well as
fixes bugs in the rar_register.h header file
Patch 5 of 5 for rar_register - fix checkpatch errors and debug program file
This patch cleans up checkpatch errors and warnings as well as
fixes bugs in the rar_register.c program file
Please note that patches 1, 2, and 3 are for 'housekeeping'. They do nothing
to correct any checkpatch errors/warnings in the driver.
Patches 4 and 5 clean up checkpatch issues in the rar_register.h and
rar_register.c file respectively.
After patch 5 is applied, there should be no checkpatch issues in the entire
driver directory
Please note that I did a test build of this patch set after patch 3 and after
patch 5 of this set.
If there are issues with either patch 4 or patch 5, you can still submit
patches 1, 2, and 3 and expect a clean build.
These patches were applied against the kernel next that I pulled as of Wednesday,
January 21, 2010.
Mark Allyn
[email protected]
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:53:30 -0800 Mark Allyn wrote:
> The following five patches are for the Restricted Access Region
> Register (rar_register) driver.
>
> This driver is for the Intel MID platform.
Hi Mark,
Please read and try to follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
E.g.:
"The canonical patch subject line is:
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase"
so your patch 1 should be more like:
[PATCH 1/5] rar_register: rename rar_driver to rar_register
and then that one patch's description should be at the top of that
email's body, not in the patch introduction/cover email.
As it stands, these 5 patch descriptions need to be moved
to each patch's patch description...
> There are five patches. They are:
>
> Patch 1 of 5 for rar_register; renaming to rar_register
> This renames the current rar resigter driver to
> the name rar_register. This is to differentiate
> it from the rar_handler driver, which will be
> submitted later.
> Patch 2 of 5 for rar_register - renaming directory to rar_register
> This renames the directory in which the driver files
> are located; again for clarity.
> Patch 3 of 5 for rar_register - provide better explanation in Kconfig
> This patch provides a better explanation of what this
> driver is for in the Kconfig file
> Patch 4 of 5 for rar_register - fix checkpatch errors and debug header
> This patch cleans up checkpatch errors and warnings as well as
> fixes bugs in the rar_register.h header file
> Patch 5 of 5 for rar_register - fix checkpatch errors and debug program file
> This patch cleans up checkpatch errors and warnings as well as
> fixes bugs in the rar_register.c program file
>
> Please note that patches 1, 2, and 3 are for 'housekeeping'. They do nothing
> to correct any checkpatch errors/warnings in the driver.
>
> Patches 4 and 5 clean up checkpatch issues in the rar_register.h and
> rar_register.c file respectively.
>
> After patch 5 is applied, there should be no checkpatch issues in the entire
> driver directory
>
>
> Please note that I did a test build of this patch set after patch 3 and after
> patch 5 of this set.
>
> If there are issues with either patch 4 or patch 5, you can still submit
> patches 1, 2, and 3 and expect a clean build.
>
> These patches were applied against the kernel next that I pulled as of Wednesday,
> January 21, 2010.
Thanks,
---
~Randy
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:23:08AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:53:30 -0800 Mark Allyn wrote:
>
> > The following five patches are for the Restricted Access Region
> > Register (rar_register) driver.
> >
> > This driver is for the Intel MID platform.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Please read and try to follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
>
> E.g.:
>
> "The canonical patch subject line is:
>
> Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase"
>
> so your patch 1 should be more like:
>
> [PATCH 1/5] rar_register: rename rar_driver to rar_register
>
> and then that one patch's description should be at the top of that
> email's body, not in the patch introduction/cover email.
>
> As it stands, these 5 patch descriptions need to be moved
> to each patch's patch description...
I agree, I can not apply these as-is.
Mark, please redo the patches.
Hint, we do have tools that make this much easier, like quilt and git,
you might take the time to learn to use them so that future patch
submissions are not bungled as badly as these have been.
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg:
Just to be clear; then only the overall description of RAR should be in the cover email?
Perhaps I over reacted to you earlier comment that each patch had too much, so I moved everything to the intro email.
I will re-submit with the description of each patch in each patch, but I will still list the patches in the intro.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:33 AM
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Allyn, Mark A; [email protected]; [email protected]; Johnson, Charles F
Subject: Re: Introduction to rar_register patch set of 5 patches
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:23:08AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:53:30 -0800 Mark Allyn wrote:
>
> > The following five patches are for the Restricted Access Region
> > Register (rar_register) driver.
> >
> > This driver is for the Intel MID platform.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Please read and try to follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
>
> E.g.:
>
> "The canonical patch subject line is:
>
> Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase"
>
> so your patch 1 should be more like:
>
> [PATCH 1/5] rar_register: rename rar_driver to rar_register
>
> and then that one patch's description should be at the top of that
> email's body, not in the patch introduction/cover email.
>
> As it stands, these 5 patch descriptions need to be moved
> to each patch's patch description...
I agree, I can not apply these as-is.
Mark, please redo the patches.
Hint, we do have tools that make this much easier, like quilt and git,
you might take the time to learn to use them so that future patch
submissions are not bungled as badly as these have been.
thanks,
greg k-h
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:59:50PM -0700, Allyn, Mark A wrote:
> Greg:
>
> Just to be clear; then only the overall description of RAR should be
> in the cover email?
Yes, consider that something that introduces the series, but will be
deleted and never seen again. The actual description needs to be in the
patches themselves, as that is what is going to be committed to the
tree, and that information will show up in the changelog for everyone to
look at for forever.
> Perhaps I over reacted to you earlier comment that each patch had too
> much, so I moved everything to the intro email.
>
> I will re-submit with the description of each patch in each patch, but
> I will still list the patches in the intro.
Sure, that's fine.
thanks,
greg k-h