linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 09/13] iop-adma: P+Q self test

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]

Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:30:47 +0100
From:	"Sosnowski, Maciej" <maciej.sosnowski@...el.com>
To:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:	"neilb@...e.de" <neilb@...e.de>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 09/13] iop-adma: P+Q self test

Williams, Dan J wrote:
> +	cookie = iop_adma_tx_submit(tx);
> +	iop_adma_issue_pending(dma_chan);
> +	msleep(8);

Why sleeping exactly 8 ms?
Has this value been somehow experiomentally obtained?
How about introducing wait_for_completion, just like it is in ioatdma now?

General remark:
Both iop_adma_pq_zero_sum_self_test() and iop_adma_xor_zero_sum_self_test()
are quite long and they consist of series of subsequent similar tests.
I guess the code would be easier to read if every test was a separate function
called from iop_adma_XX_zero_sum_self_test().

Regards,
Maciej
--
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/