linux-kernel - Re: sparc64 / bbc

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]

Message-Id: <20070226.212902.78711266.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:29:02 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Joerg.Friedrich@...edrich-kn.de
Cc:	j.j.green@...ffield.ac.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparc64 / bbc_i2c.c

From: Joerg Friedrich <Joerg.Friedrich@...edrich-kn.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:22:39 +0100

> Can you just tell me if it's sufficient to check for  a return value >0
> of wait_event_interruptible_timeout? I was not sure so I extended the
> check to 
> if ((val != -ERESTARTSYS) && (val > 0))

I changed the check to just "val > 0".

The comments in the kernel around the implementation and
declaration of the function wait_event_interruptible()
VERY CLEARLY state that the possible return values are:

1) Negative error code on interrupt
2) Zero if timeout expired
3) Positive non-zero value if condition became true before
   timeout expired

So there is no doubt that "val > 0" is sufficient.
-
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/