linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] opticon: use generic code where possible

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:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:23:29 +0100
From:	Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>
To:	Alon Ziv <alon@...aviz.org>
Cc:	Alon Ziv <alon+git@...aviz.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] opticon: use generic code where possible

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Alon Ziv <alon@...aviz.org> wrote:
>> Here it seems you're turning write into a blocking function if you have
>> no bulk-out end-point. I'm not sure that is desired.
>
> Right...
> I considered doing it differently (which would require more code--I
> would need to track the outstanding control URBs, and would need a
> callback to free the kmalloc()ed setup packet). In the end, I left it as
> blocking because the actual protocol used by the OPN2001 is very light
> on writes (in fact, it never writes anything without waiting for a
> response, and its longest outgoing message is
> limited to 70 bytes).

But you already had a working non-blocking implementation in place
(authored by yourself, if I'm not mistaken) which did exactly that.
Why not simply keep it?

Thanks,
Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/