netdev - Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop

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:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:13:00 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur.tabi@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, afleming@...escale.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gianfar: Wait for both RX and TX to stop


On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
>> I understand, its more a sense that we are saying we want to time out for what I consider a catastrophic HW failure.
> 
> And how else will you detect and recover from such a failure without a
> timeout?  And are you absolutely certain that there will never be a
> programming failure that will cause this loop to spin forever?
> 
> If you're really opposed to a timeout, you can still use
> spin_event_timeout() by just setting the timeout to -1 and adding a
> comment explaining why.

I'm not opposed, I'm just asking if we are saying we shouldn't be using cpu_relax() for spinning on HW status registers ever.

If we are suggesting that cpu_relax() shouldn't be used in these scenarios going forward I'm ok w/the change you suggest and starting to convert other cpu_relax() calls to use spin_event_timeout()

- k--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html