linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc_spi: do propper retry managment in the block layer

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 21:45:51 +0200
From:	Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>
To:	Wolfgang Mües <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Matt Fleming" <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	"David Brownell" <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc_spi: do propper retry managment in the block layer

On Wed, 6 May 2009 11:45:30 +0200
Wolfgang Mües <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de> wrote:

> 
> I checked the drivers sourcecode and found that most drivers are using EINVAL 
> for non-recoverable parameter errors.
> 
> The only driver which uses EINVAL for errors which might result from 
> transmission failures is mmc_spi.
> 
> So I think it would be OK to use another error code in mmc_spi for these 
> cases:
> 
>  * EILSEQ       Basic format problem with the received or sent data
>  *              (e.g. CRC check failed, incorrect opcode in response
>  *              or bad end bit)
> 
> Would you accept a patch to report another error code in mmc_spi?
> 

EILSEQ seems correct for SPI bit errors, so I'd gladly accept such a
patch, yes. :)

Rgds
-- 
     -- Pierre Ossman

  WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
  Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
  for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
  encryption.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)