linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus

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: <1335845444.3621.11.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Tue, 01 May 2012 14:10:44 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Kent Yoder <key@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus


> Else, what about ceding the processor ? Or at the very least reducing
> the thread priority for a bit ?
> 
> Shouldn't we also enforce to always have a timeout ? IE. Something like
> 30s or so if nothing specified to avoid having the kernel just hard
> lock...
> 
> In general I don't like that sort of synchronous code, I'd rather return
> the busy status up the chain which gives a chance to the caller to take
> more appropriate measures depending on what it's doing, but that really
> depends what you use that synchronous call for. I suppose if it's for
> configuration type operations, it's ok...

In any case, don't resend the whole series, just that one patch.

Cheers,
Ben.



--
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/