On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 07:54:41AM +0000, Pekon Gupta wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:00:01AM +0000, bpqw wrote:
> >I don't see any in-tree users of nand_{un,}lock(). I recently caught a
> >bug in nand_lock() via inspection (still need to send a fix), but I was
> >considering dropping the functions entirely.
> >
> >I presume you have some out-of-tree driver that uses these functions,
> >then?
> >
> Please don't drop nand_{unlock, lock} interfaces at-least for sometime.
> I remember there were some users trying to use these for secure
> applications. But due to lack of proper userland utility support they
> probably dropped the idea.OK, I won't drop them yet. > Good to have this added as part of mtd-utils package, and then let it live > for some more time. As you note, there's no user-space support. There's actually no one using them even in the kernel, which is why I considered dropping them. If you want to use them, find a proper way to use them then! (I'm not sure: do they match with mtd_lock() / ioctl(MEMLOCK) interface?) Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
