linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] sdhci: always use max timeout for xfers

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: <4D6B0A25.1060009@samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:36:21 +0900
From:	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Philip Rakity <prakity@...vell.com>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sdhci: always use max timeout for xfers

I think that always use max timeout for xfers is not bed..
But when i have sent the RFC patch, during suspend/resume is appeared some problem.
(when busy-waiting, occurred interrupt..so illegal sequence error is occurred..)
Anyone found same problem when suspend/resume?

So, i think that setting maximum timeout value is not good solution about every case.

Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:49:25AM -0800, Philip Rakity wrote:
>> v2
>>
>> use define for max timeout.  remove subroutine call and just
>> set the register directly
> 
> The generic description goes above the "---" line, the incremental
> history of the patch usually below.
> 
>> v1
>>
>> The card/host controller may sometimes return a value that is
>> too low and cause the h/w to timeout a transfer that would have
>> worked.  Using the maximum value avoids this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity <prakity@...vell.com>
> 
> What is there seems ok, but it is not enough yet. The quirks can also go
> from the users.
> 
> After that, it gets even more complicated; after this patch
> 'host->timeout_clk' becomes obsolete which should probably cleaned up in
> a later patch together with host->ops->get_timeout_clk. Hmmmm, that
> needs careful auditing.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Wolfram
> 

--
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/