linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] at91_serial: Fix break handling

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, 2 Aug 2006 18:14:03 +0200
From:	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Victor <andrew@...people.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] at91_serial: Fix break handling

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:17:41 +0100
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:


> 1. Effectively, this just ignores every second break status.  We've
> no idea _which_ break interrupt is going to be ignored.

Good point. Would it be better if I forced break_active to zero after
some timeout?

Come to think about it, it's really strange that there's a single bit
indicating both start-of-break and end-of-break. I'll see if I can find
a way to tell the difference.

> 2. it breaks break handling.  uart_handle_break returns a value for a
>    reason.  Use it - don't unconditionally ignore the received
> character.

Ok, I'll fix it.

Out of curiosity, why does it return a value? ;)

Håvard
-
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/