netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: irda: pxaficp_ir: use sched

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:27:51 +0200
From:	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	samuel@...tiz.org, petr.cvek@....cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: irda: pxaficp_ir: use sched_clock() for time management

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

> From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:36:56 +0200
>
>> Which brings me to wonder which is the more correct :
>>  (a) replace to reproduce the same calculation
>>      Previously mtt was compared to a difference of 76ns steps (as 307ns / 4 =
>>      76ns):
>>      while ((sched_clock() - si->last_clk) * 76 < mtt)
>> 
>>  (b) change the calculation assuming mtt is in microseconds :
>>      while ((sched_clock() - si->last_clk) * 1000 < mtt)
>> 
>> I have no IRDA protocol knowledge so unless someone points me to the correct
>> calculation I'll try my luck with (b).
>
> "a" would be "safer" and less likely to break anything, although as
> you say "b" might be more correct.
Indeed.

Well, let me try (b) then. I'll add in the commit message the timings change,
and if anybody complains a regression pops out, I'll provide a patch to fallback
to (a).

Cheers.

-- 
Robert
--
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