linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - defer pwm config if pwm can sleep

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

Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 17:38:11 +0200
From:	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@...zinger.com>,
	Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>,
	Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - defer pwm config if pwm can sleep

On 2016-05-12 14:18, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 
> I agree with Dmitry. Users of the PWM API should always assume that
> calls to the PWM API might sleep. Conditionalizing on pwm_can_sleep()
> isn't a good idea, since that function is scheduled to be removed. In
> fact it's been returning true unconditionally since v4.5, so the fast
> path is dead code anyway.
> 

In this case, the decision is clear ;-)
I'll rework and send the new patch in the next days.

best regards,
manfred