linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay

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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>
To:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
cc:	Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, khali@...ux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] applesmc: Bump max wait and rearrange udelay



On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Henrik Rydberg wrote:

> The current patch does exactly the same sleeps, the only difference is
> that the test is also done before the first sleep. Thus, the increased
> delay, if any, comes from the sleep range.
My understanding is that the original patch resulted in trying a 
max udelay(16). The new one does usleep_range(16, 32). That's a minimum 16 
max 32 - so the fact that it stops read failures means the added delay is 
present and does help.

> 
> 
> The MBP10,1 experiences a lot of write errors with this patch.

Well the send_byte changes are not necessary for fixing my problem - I 
only converted it because of usleep_range() primarily. What happens if you 
drop the send_byte() part of the patch and test with only the wait_read() 
changes? I would be very surprised if that caused write or read failures. 


Parag
--
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/