linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] OMAP: MMC: recover from transfer failures

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]

Message-Id: <200902081227.03526.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:27:03 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jean Pihet <jpihet@...sta.com>, tony@...mide.com,
	ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, jarkko.lavinen@...ia.com,
	drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: MMC: recover from transfer failures - Resend

On Thursday 05 February 2009, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > > +   while (OMAP_HSMMC_READ(host->base,
> > > +                   SYSCTL) & SRD)
> > > +           ;
> > 
> > Is a __raw_readl() sufficient to prevent the cpu from burning up here,
> > or should we add cpu_relax()?
> 
> The __raw_readl() should be sufficient.  The MMC controller is located on 
> the L4 CORE interconnect, so the round trip latency for the read from MMC 
> is at least 90 ns, while the CPU cycle time is only about 1 to 2 ns.

It's still good policy to have a cpu_relax() in
such loops.  Not that it'll do much on most ARMs,
but empty statements are in general worth avoiding.


--
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/